Guest Posting by Ira Glickstein
Santa brought us a new Sunspot prediction to be added to NASA’s incredibly high series of at least five ill-fated predictions starting in 2006. NASA’s latest peak Sunspot Number for Solar Cycle #24 (SC24) is down 60% from their original, but it still seems a bit too high, judging by David Archibald’s recent WUWT posting that analogizes SC24 and SC25 to SC5 and SC6 which peaked around 50, during the cold period (Dalton minimum) of the early 1800’s.
According to Yogi Berra “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” Team leader Dr. Mausumi Dikpati of NASA’s National Center for Atmospheric Research and Solar physicist Dr. David Hathaway of the National Space Science & Technology Center have most likely learned that lesson well, having predicted, back in March 2006, that SC24 would start by the end of 2006 or early 2007 and would peak 30% to 50% higher than SC23, which would yield counts of 156 to 180. The latest prediction is 64 (I love their precision :^) but I predict it will have to be reduced further, kind of like an after-Christmas sale :^)
[NOTE added 28 Dec 9:45PM. See clarification comment by: John from CA, December 28, 2010 at 1:44 pm. I was mistaken in conflating NASA with NOAA in the graphic and discussion, wrongly assuming they coordinated their Sunspot predictions. The base chart, as labeled, is from NOAA but the predictions are from Dikpati and/or Hathaway at NASA, but later ones, on a NASA website, may be personal, not official. Thanks John from CA and sorry for my ignorance of government organization. Ira]
My graphic traces the downward progression of NASA Sunspot predictions, superimposed over NASA’s NOAA’s latest chart of actual Sunspot Numbers. SC23 is shown from its peak in 2000 to its demise in 2009, along with the rise of SC24 up to the latest November 2010 data. The red hoop, peaking at 90, is left over from their previous prediction and should be replaced by their new prediction in January. [Click graphic for larger version].
As indicated, SC23 peaked at a count of 120 around January 2000. It is instructive to read NASA’s March 2006 predictions (and somewhat humorous until you realize we paid for it). Some direct quotes [emphasis added]:
“The next sunspot cycle will be 30% to 50% stronger than the previous one,” [Dikpati] says… Dikpati’s prediction is unprecedented. In nearly-two centuries since the 11-year sunspot cycle was discovered, scientists have struggled to predict the size of future maxima—and failed. Solar maxima can be intense, as in 1958, or barely detectable, as in 1805, obeying no obvious pattern.
The key to the mystery, Dikpati realized years ago, is a conveyor belt on the sun…
Hathaway … explains: “First, remember what sunspots are–tangled knots of magnetism generated by the sun’s inner dynamo. A typical sunspot exists for just a few weeks. Then it decays, leaving behind a ‘corpse’ of weak magnetic fields.”…
“The top of the conveyor belt skims the surface of the sun, sweeping up the magnetic fields of old, dead sunspots. The ‘corpses’ are dragged down at the poles to a depth of 200,000 km where the sun’s magnetic dynamo can amplify them. Once the corpses (magnetic knots) are reincarnated (amplified), they become buoyant and float back to the surface.” Presto—new sunspots!
All this happens with massive slowness. “It takes about 40 years for the belt to complete one loop,” says Hathaway. The speed varies “anywhere from a 50-year pace (slow) to a 30-year pace (fast).”
When the belt is turning “fast,” it means that lots of magnetic fields are being swept up, and that a future sunspot cycle is going to be intense. This is a basis for forecasting: “The belt was turning fast in 1986-1996,” says Hathaway. “Old magnetic fields swept up then should re-appear as big sunspots in 2010-2011.”
Like most experts in the field, Hathaway has confidence in the conveyor belt model and agrees with Dikpati that the next solar maximum should be a doozy. But he disagrees with one point. Dikpati’s forecast puts Solar Max at 2012. Hathaway believes it will arrive sooner, in 2010 or 2011.
“History shows that big sunspot cycles ‘ramp up’ faster than small ones,” he says. “I expect to see the first sunspots of the next cycle appear in late 2006 or 2007—and Solar Max to be underway by 2010 or 2011.”
Who’s right? Time will tell. Either way, a storm is coming.
Did Dikpati and Hathaway honestly believed they had cracked the Sunspot code that had eluded science for two centuries? In hindsight, we all know they were wrong in their heady predictions of a “doozy”. (A doozy, according to Webster is “an extraordinary one of its kind”. NASA expected SC24 to be extraordinarily intense. But it is shaping up to be extraordinarily weak, so they at least get credit for using the correct word :^)
But, were they being honest? Well, Hathaway had long been aware of the relationship between Sunspot counts and climate, writing:
Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715. … This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the ‘Little Ice Age’ when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past. The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research.
Is it possible that their prediction was skewed to the high side by the prevalent opinion, in the Inconvenient Truth year of 2006, that Global Warming was “settled science”. Could it be that they felt pressured to please their colleagues and superiors by predicting a Sunspot doozy that would presage a doozy of a warm spell?
It seems to me that NASA has a long history of delayed Sunspot predictions, particularly when the trend was downward. They seem to have waited until the actual counts forced them to do so.
Have a look at the graphic. SC23 SC24 [thanks Steeptown December 27, 2010 at 11:37 pm] was supposed to start by early 2007, but it did not. Yet, it took them until October 2008 to revise their prediction of a later start and lower peak (137) and then they dropped it further in January 2009 (predicting a peak of 104 to occur in early 2012).
I am not any kind of expert on Sunspots, yet it was clear to me, nearly two years ago, that 104 was way too high so I predicted a peak of 80 and moved the date of that peak to mid-2013. NASA eventually reduced their peak to 90, and just this month down to 64, and they moved the peak date to mid-2013. My latest prediction is 60, to occur in early 2014, but I believe I may still be a bit too high.
With apologies to Pete Seeger:
Where have all the sunspots gone? NA-SA search-ing,
Where have all the sunspots go-ne? NASA don’t know.
Where have all the sunspots gone? Global Cooling, anyone?
Will NASA ever learn? Will NA-SA ev-er learn?
Where has all the carbon gone? Green-house gas-es,
Where has all the carbon go-ne? Come down as snow!
Where has all the carbon gone? Heating houses, everyone,
Will NASA ever learn? Will NA-SA ev-er learn?
Where has Global Warming gone? Point not tip-ping,
Where has Global Warming go-ne? Its gonna slow.
Where has Global Warming gone? Normal seasons of the Sun,
Will NASA ever learn? Will NA-SA ev-er learn?
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 31, 2010 at 8:07 am
Robuk says:
December 31, 2010 at 6:49 am
You are suggesting that there was a normal count in the daulton and that todays count is normal so NO sun climate link.
I’m saying we don’t know precisely what the count was. Contemporary observers reported a very active sun.
There is definitely a sun-climate link. The sun has a barely measurable influence on the climate of the order of a tenth or two of a degree.
Leif, you listed some of the notes from Wolf’s notebook:
Wolf himself when he compiled his sunspot series has this to say about SC5:
a. Arago, Herschel, Fritsch, Flaugergues saw 1801-1802 ‘rich groups.
b. in 1803-1804 this richness was extraordinary.
c. Fritsch saw in 180201803 often more than 50 large spots.
d. Eimbeke states that he has never seen as persistent and often occurring spots as in 1803.
e. Huth says that he had never seen as many and as large spots as in 1804.
f. Huth, Bode, Flaugerguess mention large spots in 1805
g. first in 1807 did the spots begin to abate
h. Fritch, Bode, Gruithusen and Ende agree that around 1810 the sun only had few spots and those were very small.
i. Fritch counted in 1817 often more than 100 spots per day, several naked-eye spots
Based on these observations of sunspots Wolf gave SC5 a rather high count of 75 in his list of 1874. When Wolf got Rubenson’s auroral catalog, he decided in his 1882 list to reduce [based on aurorae, not sunspots] the size of SC5 to 47.5 and hence was born the Dalton minimum.
First of all, observation (i) is from the peak of solar cycle 6 not solar cycle 5.
Are these notes the total of what Wolf had on direct observations of sunspots during the 1803-1817 periof, or are these the ‘highlights’ from a longer set of notes?
Thanks
Leif Svalgaard says:
I forgot to mention that Locarno uses the inverse of the Mt. Wilson Scale, with 1 being perfect and 5 very bad. On each Locarno drawing the seeing is indicated. Typical value is 3. SIDC alsouses the Mt. Wilson seeing scale [often indicated on Locarno drawings too].
The k-factor depends on seeing as follows [for Kandili Observatory http://www.springerlink.com/content/q36kv02740646965/ 25 cm image]:
seeing 1 [bad]: k=0.96
2: k= 0.95
3: k= 0.90
4: k= 0.83
5: k= 0.74
A k smaller than 0.6 means that you see more spots than Wolfer [with his 80 mm scope]. A k larger than 0.6 means that you see fewer spots than Wolfer.
Looks like some things have improved at Kandilli since 1986, because they have lower K-values now (0.6550 in 2008).
Geoff Sharp says:
December 31, 2010 at 8:22 pm
When Waldmeier was doing his comparison it was with two different observers in times of high activity.
The comparison was done every year and 1954 was very quiet.
If Cortesi had a similar factor to Zulrich that does not mean the record will remain homogeneous in future times when new observers are appointed, along with the speck ratio changes like now that enable the 150mm telescope with its extra seeing to record more.
The evidence shows that the factor has stayed constant over time and that it even today is still near 0.6, so has not changed. And we have to go with the data we have, not with what you think it will become in the future.
A question on the Cortesi factor: What is that factor applied to, I remember you were confused several days ago about a 0.6 telescope factor you suggested was necessary to align the 150mm and 80mm telescopes.
I was playing Devil’s advocate for a moment. Assume that there actually was a difference between 150 and 80, then to account for the fact that published numbers show that there is not, I was entertaining the possibility that there was a hidden 0.6 to make the numbers the same. Having looked at more data, I’ve discounted that idea. There is no hidden factor, and the published numbers match the drawings, so I [and you] will have to accept that the 150 and 80 see the same spots.
The telescope originally used by Wolf did not have the same resolution as the instruments used now. The reduction factor k {R = k(10g+f)} was introduced to take care of this problem.
Is not very illuminating [and actually wrong]. The resolution doesn’t matter if seeing sets the limit. And the k was introduced by Wolfer to take care of the difference in counting method, not because of difference in telescope as the telescope did not change. Finally, k for Wolfer and Waldmeier [with 80mm] and for Sergio [with 150] are the same [0.6] so one can only conclude that the count is the same.
But if we look at the raw Locarno figures on average they are not double discounted.
I agree, so we have to accept that Locarno sees the same as Zurich.
Clette’s email as you suggest has some errors (perhaps), I think (and so does Sergio) that he is wrong about the 50mm telescope seeing the same as the 150mm.
the 50 mm is sort of a strawman as the issue is with 80 mm.
Notice also he did not answer my query re using the full Waldmeier method which we have both seen can vary at Locarno……I don’t think we have all the answers yet.
The Waldmeier method did [and does] not ‘vary’ at Locarno. I think the situation by now is crystal clear: Zurich and Locarno use the same method, and they see the same spots. Or at least their published numbers are the same. This is the key point. All the waffling about seeing is irrelevant. What matters are the numbers they actually publish.
Locarno not as good but not uncommon to see level 2 conditions.
Even level 2 means that the seeing limit is between 1 and 2″, and not ‘uncommon’ is vague. If you actually look at the data objectively, you see that 1 is 1.6%, 2 is 29.6%, 3 is 55%, 4 is 12.7%, and 5 is 1%. Locarno often report ‘2,3’ which I count as one 2 and one 3. There are very few pure 2s.
But all of this is completely irrelevant [serves as useful distractions, of course]. What is important is that the numbers reported if multiplied by 0.6 match Keller [who reports his 80 mm count also multiplied by 0.6].
Geoff Sharp says:
December 31, 2010 at 9:16 pm
My only response from Ronald Van der Linden was a brief message thanking me for my supplementary data.
Thus a boiler plate reply, which you called ‘very appreciative’…
Your use of the minimum size speck is wrong./i>
Just referring to what the observers say. The point is: what can they see with a seeing of 3?
I cannot see anywhere in his email that I should not “promote my ideas” You might need to explain that one.
He says that you should not use his email for that, as he does not want to be used. Even us discussing this he would not condone.
There is obviously some doubt that needs to be investigated, we should probably not speculate too much and await the outcome.
The situation is already clear. The wait for them to revise their numbers might be a long one.
Reading your conversations with Frederick I am not convinced that the Locarno 150mm was compared with the 80mm at the time of the SIDC takeover. Can I suggest if you want to discuss this, it be done privately through email.
No discussion is needed as the situation is already clear. You just need to accept the facts. From http://www.icsu-fags.org/ps11sidc.htm : “The Sunspot Index Data Centre was founded in 1981 to continue the work of the Zurich Observatory. With Andre Koeckelenberg as first director, the Sunspot Index Data Centre started in January 1981 the computation and the diffusion of the INTERNATIONAL SUNSPOT NUMBER (Ri), of which the continuity and coherence with the former Zurich index Rz was insured by the use of the Specola Solare Ticinese Locarno as reference station.” What they did was to note that Locarno had had a factor of 0.6 [for Cortesi] against Rz at all times and that that factor should be continued.
tallbloke says:
January 1, 2011 at 2:50 am
What did he say and when that you interpret as an accusation of having an agenda Leif?
Isn’t it the other way around: Scafetta says I have an agenda. And he is correct, of course. My agenda is to set the record straight.
First of all, observation (i) is from the peak of solar cycle 6 not solar cycle 5.
SC6 was part of the Dalton too.
Are these notes the total of what Wolf had on direct observations of sunspots during the 1803-1817 period, or are these the ‘highlights’ from a longer set of notes?
This is what he based his initial assessment on, see: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Wolf-I.pdf page XVIII. He later dug up some more, but didn’t change the size of SC5, until 1882.
Jcarels says:
January 1, 2011 at 5:31 am
“A k smaller than 0.6 means that you see more spots than Wolfer [with his 80 mm scope]. A k larger than 0.6 means that you see fewer spots than Wolfer.”
Looks like some things have improved at Kandilli since 1986, because they have lower K-values now (0.6550 in 2008).
The k-value also depends on the observer. But still, their new value is larger than 0.6 so they see with their 200mm telescope fewer spots than Wolfer did with his 80mm.
The observer effect is also clearly seen for Locarno. The observer before Cortesi [with k=0.59] was Rapp who had k=0.8, so saw significantly fewer spots.
From Mount Wilson Solar Observatory
Therefore, we are forced to conclude that the Sun does experience occasional lulls in its activity. Using other proxies of long-term activity, such as the 14C abundance, we can see that the Sun goes into these quiescent periods every few centuries. At present we seem to be experiencing the opposite phenomenon; the most recent four cycles are among THE MOST ACTIVE EVER RECORDED.
http://www.mtwilson.edu/hk/Maunder/
Its accepted that the solar cycles continued as normal through the Maunda but at a lower activity level. It is also accepted that this low activity probably caused the cooler temperatures at that time.
Why should it not be feasable to accept that the most active 4 cycles ever recorded up to cycle 23 caused the present warming.
Why should it not be feasable to accept the lack of activity today from such a recent high has little effect on temperature.
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/10be14c.jpg
You can see from the link above that 10be correlates well with the sunspot count up to 1900, the last link shows 10be beyond that point.
http://www.novaquatis.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/surf/publikationen/2009_berggren.pdf
Our new data from NGRIP does involve LOW 10be values during much of the 20th century, ( but by no means at an unusually low level).
See for yourself below,
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/befluxDye3-2.jpg
Looks like the 10be count from 1900 is pretty low to me.
Robuk says:
January 1, 2011 at 9:14 am
the most recent four cycles are among THE MOST ACTIVE EVER RECORDED.
Certainly not. Cycle 20 was pretty low, cycle 17 was higher than 20 and 23, so was cycle 4.
It is also accepted that this low activity probably caused the cooler temperatures at that time.
no, it is conjectured, not accepted.
Looks like the 10be count from 1900 is pretty low to me.
The 10Be count is influenced by climate, so you have a circular argument.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 1, 2011 at 6:22 am
tallbloke says:
January 1, 2011 at 2:50 am
What did he say and when that you interpret as an accusation of having an agenda Leif?
Isn’t it the other way around: Scafetta says I have an agenda. And he is correct, of course. My agenda is to set the record straight.
Well that’s what I’m asking. Can you reference thealleged accusation from Scafetta?
And we all know how straight (and level) you’d like to set the solar record Leif. 😉
First of all, observation (i) is from the peak of solar cycle 6 not solar cycle 5.
SC6 was part of the Dalton too.
You introduced the notes as applying to SC5
Are these notes the total of what Wolf had on direct observations of sunspots during the 1803-1817 period, or are these the ‘highlights’ from a longer set of notes?
This is what he based his initial assessment on, see: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Wolf-I.pdf page XVIII. He later dug up some more, but didn’t change the size of SC5, until 1882.
So earlier he decided the cycle was higher, then he “dug up some more” which later led to his re-estimation.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 1, 2011 at 9:31 am
Robuk says:
January 1, 2011 at 9:14 am
the most recent four cycles are among THE MOST ACTIVE EVER RECORDED.
Certainly not. Cycle 20 was pretty low, cycle 17 was higher than 20 and 23, so was cycle 4.
I didn`t say that it came from here,
http://www.mtwilson.edu/hk/Maunder/
Looks like the 10be count from 1900 is pretty low to me.
The 10Be count is influenced by climate, so you have a circular argument.
=====================================================
Although 10be data from the SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE would be a great contribution, existing data is of TO LOW A RESOLUTION to accurately reflect the Schwabe cycle variations, since we focus here on DECADAL variations we EXCLUDE lower resolution data, ( South pole data ).
Same paper,
Our new data from NGRIP does involve LOW 10be values during much of the 20th century, ( but by no means at an unusually low level), see previous post.
The Dye-3 flux decreases in the 20th century, a fact that has been used to support a theory that the sun has been unusually active since 1940, this conclusion has been disputed by (Raisbeck and Yiou 2004) BASED ON SOUTH POLE 10be data.
I thought they said the southern hemisphere data was too CAUSE, seems to me they didn`t get the result they expected, they can`t accept their own data
So according to Leif, the 10Be count is influenced by climate when it shows a good correlation to the sunspot count in the past, but when it shows that same good correlation in the present it`s influenced by climate.
WELL IF 10be COUNT IS INFLUENCED BY CLIMATE AND HENCE IS UNRELIABLE THERE IS LOT OF PEOPLE OUT THERE TRYING TO DISCREDIT IT, I WONDER WHY.
http://www.novaquatis.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/surf/publikationen/2009_berggren.pdf
I will find it and link it. It was in, I think, a thread posted by Scarfetta himself here but it was here on WUWT that it was made. I’ll have to go back through the titles and see.
If some one says one person has an agenda, is up to that person to fess up to it or is the owness on the one making the accusation? The latter. Which can only be done by Science in the traditonal pre post-normal fashion. And to be fair to Leif: he does have a professional position. His opinions carry weight whereas I can wax on lyrical about any old rubbish and if i’m wrong, no harm done.
Sorry I meant,
So according to Leif, the 10Be count is NOT influenced by climate when it shows a good correlation to the sunspot count in the past, but when it shows that same good correlation in the present it is influenced by climate.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 1, 2011 at 9:31 am
The 10Be count is influenced by climate, so you have a circular argument.
Give me an example, a study some evidence, I believe Gunnar asked this same question in 2007, has the evidence accumulating yet.
=====================================================
Leif Svalgaard
Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 5:51 PM | Permalink
Gunnar: nej, dansk, living in Houston, TX.
About evidence:
What I’m talking about is that there is accumulating evidence that our previous ‘dogma’ that solar activity was the highest ever (or at least in the last umpteen thousand years) is crumbling. This is all quite new and is still being debated and well-entrenched opinions die slowly [often have to await the departure of their carriers]. Science is largely self-correcting and will eventually come around so that progress can be made. This takes a certain amount of time during which confusion and heated arguments will reign. But to be proactive y’all might at least contemplate what your stance about climate change would be, should I turn out to be correct that solar activity right now is no different from what it was 100-160 years ago.
This is the 2007 discussion with Leif.
http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/30/svalgaard-solar-theory/
I’m not sure of the thread-perhaps a Rypdal & Rypdal thread, perhaps in the fall of 2009. But the posts occured in April 2010 and I don’t know what thread it came from here @ur momisugly WUWT. It was ‘James F. Evans’ who stated “Dr. Svalgaard has a dog in this fight” not ‘Scarfetta’. Scarfetta was not very flattering though. i’ll post Jame’s comments first and then Scarfetta’s. Apologies to Leif and Nicola. My experience here is that there are many challengers to Leif but he generally is the last one standing. The challengers tend to dissappear instead of standing their ground. At least here anyway.
‘………………………………
James F. Evans (16:08:28) :
Nicola Scafetta (10:25:29) :
Thank you for commenting.
The reason I point to your (10:25:29) comment is that it shows that Dr. Svalgaard has a dog in this fight — his own hypothesis depends on debunking your paper and the R&R paper acts as a proxy for his purpose of doing that.
A cat’s paw, if you will.
So, Dr. Svalgaard can grind his axe in the comments section (no surprise Dr. Svalgaard tipped this to Anthony Watts).
Not that Rypdal & Rypdal don’t have their own axes to grind, so the analogy isn’t perfect, but it will do.
Nicola Scafetta’s (12:57:00) comment: “Rypdal and Rypdal have proven that when the temperature data are altered, in their case by adopting several detrending procedures, the properties we found in the data, which are hidden in the smooth component of the temperature, disappear.
I suspect that R&R’s methodology can be used to disprove any study.”
Interesting and revealing that Dr. Svalgaard has no direct response to that specific statement — it’s a damning argument against the R&R paper (which Dr. Svalgaard complained was being ignored in the discussion).
What’s interesting to me is the word, “detrending”. The word suggests that manipulation is being removed from the data (which would make it more accurate), but it would seem that in actuality, it acts in an opposite way, it’s its own type of manipulation for a desired “outcome” in line with a political agenda. Something I tried to point out earier in the discussion, but perhaps met with limited success.
Nicola Scafetta points out that Dr. Svalgaard’s conclusions are an outlier from other scientists’ conclusions (which possibly suggests Dr. Svalgaard’s statements and conclusions on this website are not as representitive as he’d like readers to think).
Also, interesting is that when Dr. Svalgaard had it pointed out to him that his data and conclusions were an outlier from other papers, he cavalierly dismissed them all. Even satellite observations & measurements, which he then dismissed based on faulty apparatus, and then justified on an acceptance for publication of a presentation he gave supporting the dismissal of the data — sounds good.
But it turns out (thanks to Mr. Scafetta) there are other satellites which confirm the data. To this Dr. Svalgaard scrambled the discussion, saying there is so much disagreement among the data that nobody knows what’s going on — which would include Dr. Svalgaard, too, I might add (he doesn’t mention that, of course).
Dr. Svalgaard never does address the additional satellite data other than to attempt his “scramble”.
Perhaps this is too far afield: Dr. Svalgaard’s qualifications based on his own statements in other discussion threads boils down to him getting invited to make presentations at various conferences — mostly astrophysical conferences.
(Dr. Svalgaard makes reference to his making a presentation and that his presentation has been accepted for publication as proof for his assertions about the satellite data.)
Obviously, the conference organizers know what he will say and likely agree with him. (That’s how it works at many conferences. How many skunks get invited to the garden party?)
Turns out the vast majority of astrophysicists and astronomers totally buy into Man-made global warming (of course, there are important exceptions). And, Dr. Svalgaard’s conclusions fit in with these AGW perceptions in the astronomy community like a glove.
So, who else are you going call to invite to give a presentation, but a fellow astrophysicist that will reinforce their pro-AGW perception (it does not matter that Dr. Svalgaard doesn’t explicitly state support for AGW — that is cleverly left to the audience to make the connection between his conclusions and astrophysical support for AGW — it would be too ham-handed if he did — that’s not Dr. Svalgaard).
Many readers assume Dr. Svalgaard is a leader in helio-astrophysics (he’ll throw his conference presentations in your face if you challenge him), but Dr. Svalgaard’s role is as a statatician – one versed or engaged in compiling statistics – and mathematician, more than a front-line scientist engaged in observation & measurement, he gets that from others.
Perhaps, now, readers will understand why Dr. Svalgaard gets invited to make so many presentations — his conclusions are exactly what the pro- AGW audience wants to hear.
Make no mistake about it: Dr. Svalgaard has a dog in this fight.
One could say, “he’s all in”, if one were playing poker.
Anyway, thanks again, Mr. Scafetta for participating and, yes, defending your paper from Dr. Svalgaard’s sharp and motivated intellect.
It provides real time discussion of points pro and con which allows readers to draw their own conclusions about the weight to be given respective papers and the weight to be given speaker’s arguments about those papers……………….’
And here was Scarfetta’s opinion:
‘………………………………
14 04 2010
Nicola Scafetta (07:15:55) :
Unfortunately today I will be very busy, so I will not be able to comment and disprove Leif word by word. Only a few points
Ulric Lyons (03:25:08) : thank you for the web site showing that solar weather effects the Earth system. This indirectly suggest the physical plausibility of our conclusions.
Leif Svalgaard (19:23:53) :
you need to read the paper printed in the journals. It is a bad habit to criticize works without reading them!
Now let us move to R&R and to
Leif Svalgaard (22:32:02) :
“10: But Levy-walks are not self-similar, and the PDF changes as time goes by as shown in Figure 3 of http://www.leif.org/research/Rypdal-Levy-Paper.png . Note the ’spikes’. These occur because a Levy-Walk is not a self-similar random process.”
What are those strange spikes? What are you representing in the distribution #3? You have no clue of what a Levy-Walk is!
“11: To summarize the differences:
a. FBMs are self-similar, Both the self-similarity exponent h and the diffusion exponent H are defined, with h = H.
b. LFs are self-similar, with self-similarity exponent h, but with undefined H.
”
fine!
“c. LWs are not self-similar, i.e. h is undefined, but H is well-defined: H = 1 – u/2″
false, read my papers, h is defined and related to H!
Now, on to S&W. They postulate that
12: On time scales much shorter that the 11-yr solar cycle, the solar flare Index [SFI] and the Global Temperature Anomaly [GTA] have the same statistical properties.
false! We use the waiting time distribution between “large” flares not the SFI which has a completely different meaning! This is the major error of R&R. They take apples for oranges! We explicitly excluded indexes such as the SFI from the analysis.
By confusing apples for oranges R&R believed that the low frequency component of the temperature signal could be removed without problems. However, because we were talking about the time structure of the signal, the smooth part of the temperature is where the signal is and cannot be removed without alter the physical properties of the signal that we wanted to detect.
In conclusion: R&R took apples for oranges and inverted the physical meaning of the low and high frequency component of the signal!………………………………………………………’
Anybody know who ‘James F. Evans’ is???????????
Thanks johnnythelowery, your reading on Dr. Svalgaard reverberates true.
tallbloke says:
January 1, 2011 at 10:05 am
Well that’s what I’m asking. Can you reference the alleged accusation from Scafetta?
No, I don’t keep track of such things. I didn’t bring up Scafetta.
And we all know how straight (and level) you’d like to set the solar record Leif. 😉
‘correct’ is the operative word.
So earlier he decided the cycle was higher, then he “dug up some more” which later led to his re-estimation.
He changed because of the auroral data, not just more sunspot data. You cannot really calibrate the sunspot data without reference to other data [auroral, geomagnetic] or simultaneous observations overlapping your own counts.
Robuk says:
January 1, 2011 at 10:31 am
“The 10Be count is influenced by climate, so you have a circular argument.”
Give me an example, a study some evidence
The Berggren paper you refer to says:
“The isotope concentration in glacial ice is affected by changes in production rate and transport and deposition processes. Changes in production rate depend on solar activity and geomagnetic field strength. The transport and deposition is influenced by atmospheric mixing (e.g., stratosphere-troposphere exchange), scavenging and snow accumulation rate.” and “[11] With the two geographically separated annual resolution 10Be records we can examine to what extent flux and concentration represent regional deposition. A change in atmospheric circulation and transport patterns may bring air masses with varying 10Be content over longer time scales.”
Webber et al 2010 note: “Indeed this implies that more than 50% the 10Be flux increase around, e.g., 1700 A.D., 1810 A.D. and 1895 A.D. is due to non-production related increases!” see: http://www.leif.org/EOS/1004-2675.pdf
johnnythelowery says:
January 1, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Anybody know who ‘James F. Evans’ is
On other blogs he used the avatar ‘Anaconda’. Mr. Evans generally does not know what he is talking about, e.g. discounts general relativity, believes that electric currents from the universe powers the sun, and other assorted nonsense. Granted that there are others on this blog that are in that same boat.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 1, 2011 at 6:22 am
Your arguments are once again not compelling and go over the same old ground….my 3 positions on the discrepancy in the sunspot count still stand, but await more information. If I am right about one aspect (when the 150mm telescope was used) then one of those positions will disappear. The information is out there and you certainly don’t have all the detail.
Robuk says:
January 1, 2011 at 10:31 am
“The 10Be count is influenced by climate, so you have a circular argument.”
Give me an example, a study some evidence
Leif is arguing at the margins. The 10Be record is backed up by the 14C records very closely and is now seen as a good proxy record for solar output. I have also used the planet positions to confirm both records over much of the Holocene. Article HERE.
johnnythelowery says:
January 1, 2011 at 5:54 pm
My experience here is that there are many challengers to Leif but he generally is the last one standing. The challengers tend to dissappear instead of standing their ground. At least here anyway.
That doesn’t make him right. I find it is very hard to have a proper scientific debate as agenda and ego tend to get in the way of searching for the real facts. How many times have you seen him give ground?
I think most give up arguing with a guy who sees no reason or is willing to accept another point of view, that point of view can be blindly obvious but is still not accepted. That is not how science should work. Those like David Archibald will not really engage with him for that reason. But having said that I have gained much knowledge and inspiration from Leif.
Alexander Feht says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:17 am
If I remember correctly, there is a self-appointed “world’s foremost Solar scientist,” very popular among some people frequenting the WUWT site, who repetitiously proclaimed that anybody asserting any connection between Solar cycles and climate changes is not worthy of any consideration, since the Sun cannot affect climate, period.
I also recall that one of the moderators, residing in San Francisco, has been very supportive toward this prominent scientist, to the deplorable extent of certain editorial bias in his favor.
He laughs best who laughs last.
[Trimmed. Robt]
Geoff Sharp says:
January 2, 2011 at 4:31 am
If I am right about one aspect (when the 150mm telescope was used) then one of those positions will disappear. The information is out there and you certainly don’t have all the detail.
The 150mm was never used to determine the sunspot number, Waldmeier is VERY clear on this.
The German ‘Sonne’ association publishes k-factors [and telescope details] for all its members. Here is a plot for the year 2000 [other years are very similar]: http://www.leif.org/research/k-Factor-Aperture.png
As you can see, k-factor does not depend on the aperture once the aperture exceeds 60mm. The green symbols [at A=40mm, k=1.1] are for H-U Keller using the original Wolf handheld telescope and the Wolf counting method [comes more or less automatically as the pores are simply not visible at 40mm].
go over the same old ground
The bedrock of truth is always the same old ground.
Robuk says:
January 2, 2011 at 8:18 am
the Sun cannot affect climate, period.
You are quite wrong on this. There is a very definite solar influence on climate to the tune of 0.1-0.2C.
A report in the December 3, 2010, issue of Science has reinforced what many scientists have suspected all along: variation in the Sun’s output causes significant change in Earth’s climate. Writing in “Dynamical Response of the Tropical Pacific Ocean to Solar Forcing During the Early Holocene,” Thomas M. Marchitto, Raimund Muscheler, Joseph D. Ortiz, Jose D. Carriquiry and Alexander van Geen present a high-resolution magnesium/calcium proxy record of Holocene sea surface temperature (SST) from off the west coast of Baja California Sur, Mexico. Their work is in agreement with the theoretical “ocean dynamical thermostat” response of ENSO to radiative forcing. Here is their description of the work:
The influence of solar variability on Earth’s climate over centennial to millennial time scales is the subject of considerable debate. The change in total solar irradiance over recent 11-year sunspot cycles amounts to <0.1%, but greater changes at ultraviolet wavelengths may have substantial impacts on stratospheric ozone concentrations, thereby altering both stratospheric and tropospheric circulation patterns. Estimates of the secular increase in total irradiance since the late 17th century Maunder sunspot minimum range from ~0.05 to 0.5%. Values in the middle of this range are sufficient to force the intermediate-complexity Zebiak-Cane model of El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) dynamics into a more El Niño–like state during the Little Ice Age (A.D. ~1400 to 1850), a response dubbed the “ocean dynamical thermostat” because negative (or positive) radiative forcing results in dynamical ocean warming (or cooling, respectively) of the eastern tropical Pacific (ETP). This model prediction is supported by paleoclimatic proxy reconstructions over the past millennium. In contrast, fully coupled general circulation models (GCMs) lack a robust thermostat response because of an opposing tendency for the atmospheric circulation itself to strengthen under reduced radiative forcing.
A number of things stand out here. First, irradiance changes that have been dismissed by some in the CO2 fan club were shown to be sufficient to drive changes in the ENSO. Much like the atmospheric solar heat amplifier found previously, seemingly minor changes in solar output can cause big changes here on Earth. Because the Pacific region is so large, any thing that affects the ENSO also affects climate world wide.
http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/2118-climate-controlling-ocean-thermostat-discovered.html
“…You are quite wrong on this. There is a very definite solar influence on climate to the tune of 0.1-0.2C.”
Gosh, and I thought the earth gained all its heat from that big ball of fire in the sky – apart from the little amount welling up from internal sources originally set in motion by that big ball of fire in the sky a few billion years ago. Now, though, I can sleep easy knowing that our climate will hardly change if that big ball of fire in the sky suddenly went cold on us – I think we can live with the loss of that 0.1-0.2C influence. Thank you, Mr. Svalgaard, for easing my worries.
[Let me call a sarcastic foul here Pops. Leif Svalgaard is clearly refering to the solar influence actually experienced so far. Obviously, “if that big ball of fire in the sky suddenly went cold on us” there would be catastrophe, but I don’t expect any “lights out” anytime soon (though they may already be out where you are :^) . Ira]
Wayne:
I’m very fond of Leif’s contributions here and have no reading of him other than he strikes me as a straight shooter. He knows what he is talking about and it’s up to the others to show where he is wrong. It has always puzzled me the exchanges he has had with Scarfetta, Piers Corbyn, Enneagram, Tallbloke, OneUniverse, Vuk, et al and the others. It is a fantastically interesting subject this sun and the climate of late and worth fighting over, and with the help of Leif, kept me on the narrow path otherwise i’d be a Electric Universe-Valikovsky Acolyte. Although i’m mildly interested in all the different ideas coming forth. It’s gotta be neauseating for Leif to see the same arguments coming forth, time and time again. If Leif has an agenda, it should be easy to flank him, because you are suggesting that the actual science has been eclipsed by
his personal opinion. So……..have at it !!!
I find his patience incredible. The fact that he even blogs i find to be amazing.
wayne says:
January 1, 2011 at 6:55 pm
Thanks johnnythelowery, your reading on Dr. Svalgaard reverberates true.
———————————————–
I am fond of Leif and has helped in my quest of this avg joe to get to the bottom of this AGW mess. His insights have been illuminating. I cast no aspertions all though i am puzzled by many of the exchanges that go on. The Solar/CLimate subject is worth fighting over and goes with the territory I suppose. I am puzzled by the exchanges with Scarfetta, corbyn, vuk, oneuniverse, enneagram, tallbloke, etc. If he has an agenda, then what they saying is that he is ignoring science in favor of his opinion, in which case, it should be easy to flank him…..shouldn’t it? If it wasn’t for him i’d be a Electric Universe-Miles Mathis- Velikovsky acolyte. He keeps the Solar threads on the straight and narrow. But i’m interested in everything being said by everyone and this thread was a particuarly interesting one. Happy New year to everyone and 2011 is going to be a cracker!!!