“Skaters can only do this race every 10 or 11 years because that’s when the rivers freeze up,” Sirocko said. “I thought to myself, ‘There must be a reason for this,’ and it turns out there is.”
WASHINGTON – Scientists have long suspected that the Sun’s 11-year cycle influences climate of certain regions on Earth. Yet records of average, seasonal temperatures do not date back far enough to confirm any patterns. Now, armed with a unique proxy, an international team of researchers show that unusually cold winters in Central Europe are related to low solar activity – when sunspot numbers are minimal. The freezing of Germany’s largest river, the Rhine, is the key.
Although the Earth’s surface overall continues to warm, the new analysis has revealed a correlation between periods of low activity of the Sun and of some cooling – on a limited, regional scale in Central Europe, along the Rhine.
“The advantage with studying the Rhine is because it’s a very simple measurement,” said Frank Sirocko lead author of a paper on the study and professor of Sedimentology and Paleoclimatology at the Institute of Geosciences of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany. “Freezing is special in that it’s like an on-off mode. Either there is ice or there is no ice.”
From the early 19th through mid-20th centuries, riverboat men used the Rhine for cargo transport. And so docks along the river have annual records of when ice clogged the waterway and stymied shipping. The scientists used these easily-accessible documents, as well as additional historical accounts, to determine the number of freezing episodes since 1780.
Sirocko and his colleagues found that between 1780 and 1963, the Rhine froze in multiple places 14 different times. The sheer size of the river means it takes extremely cold temperatures to freeze over making freezing episodes a good proxy for very cold winters in the region, Sirocko said.
Mapping the freezing episodes against the solar activity’s 11-year cycle – a cycle of the Sun’s varying magnetic strength and thus total radiation output – Sirocko and his colleagues determined that ten of the fourteen freezes occurred during years around when the Sun had minimal sunspots. Using statistical methods, the scientists calculated that there is a 99 percent chance that extremely cold Central European winters and low solar activity are inherently linked.
“We provide, for the first time, statistically robust evidence that the succession of cold winters during the last 230 years in Central Europe has a common cause,” Sirocko said.
With the new paper, Sirocko and his colleagues have added to the research linking solar variability with climate, said Thomas Crowley, Director of the Scottish Alliance for Geoscience, Environment, and Society, who was not involved with the study.
“There is some suspension of belief in this link,” Crowley said, “and this study tilts the argument more towards thinking there really is something to this link. If you have more statistical evidence to support this explanation, one is more likely to say it’s true.”
The study, conducted by researchers at Johannes Gutenberg and the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich, Switzerland, is set to be published August 25 in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.
When sunspot numbers are down, the Sun emits less ultraviolet radiation. Less radiation means less heating of Earth’s atmosphere, which sparks a change in the circulation patterns of the two lowest atmospheric levels, the troposphere and stratosphere. Such changes lead to climatic phenomena such as the North Atlantic Oscillation, a pattern of atmospheric pressure variations that influences wind patterns in the North Atlantic and weather behavior in regions in and around Europe.
“Due to this indirect effect, the solar cycle does not impact hemispherically averaged temperatures, but only leads to regional temperature anomalies,” said Stephan Pfahl, a co-author of the study who is now at the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich.
The authors show that this change in atmospheric circulation leads to cooling in parts of Central Europe but warming in other European countries, such as Iceland. So, sunspots don’t necessarily cool the entire globe – their cooling effect is more localized, Sirocko said.
In fact, studies have suggested that the extremely cold European winters of 2010 and 2011 were the result of the North Atlantic Oscillation, which Sirocko and his team now link to the low solar activity during that time.
The 2010 and 2011 European winters were so cold that they resulted in record lows for the month of November in certain countries. Some who dispute the occurrence of anthropogenic climate change argue that this two-year period shows that Earth’s climate is not getting any warmer. But climate is a complex system, Sirocko said. And a short-term, localized dip in temperatures only temporarily masks the effects of a warming world.
“Climate is not ruled by one variable,” said Sirocko. “In fact, it has [at least] five or six variables. Carbon dioxide is certainly one, but solar activity is also one.”
Moreover, the researchers also point out that, despite Central Europe’s prospect to suffer colder winters every 11 years or so, the average temperature of those winters is increasing and has been for the past three decades. As one piece of evidence of that warming, the Rhine River has not frozen over since 1963. Sirocko said such warming results, in part, from climate change.
To establish a more complete record of past temperature dips, the researchers are looking to other proxies, such as the spread of disease and migratory habits.
“Disease can be transported by insects and rats, but during a strong freezing year that is not likely,” said Sirocko. “Also, Romans used the Rhine to defend against the Germanics, but as soon as the river froze people could move across it. The freezing of the Rhine is very important on historical timescales.”
It wasn’t, however, the Rhine that first got Sirocko to thinking about the connection between freezing rivers and sunspot activity. In fact, it was a 125-mile ice-skating race he attended over 20 years ago in the Netherlands that sparked the scientist’s idea.
“Skaters can only do this race every 10 or 11 years because that’s when the rivers freeze up,” Sirocko said. “I thought to myself, ‘There must be a reason for this,’ and it turns out there is.”
Title:
“Solar influence on winter severity in central Europe”
Abstract:
The last two winters in central Europe were unusually cold in comparison to the years before. Meteorological data, mainly from the last 50 years, and modelling studies have suggested that both solar activity and El Niño strength may influence such central European winter coldness. To investigate the mechanisms behind this in a statistically robust way and to test which of the two factors was more important during the last 230 years back into the Little Ice Age, we use historical reports of freezing of the river Rhine. The historical data show that 10 of the 14 freeze years occurred close to sunspot minima and only one during a year of moderate El Niño. This solar influence is underpinned by corresponding atmospheric circulation anomalies in reanalysis data covering the
period 1871 to 2008. Accordingly, weak solar activity is empirically related to extremely cold winter conditions in Europe also on such long time scales. This relationship still holds today, however the average winter temperatures have been rising during the last decades.
Authors:
Frank Sirocko and Heiko Brunck: Institute of Geosciences, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz;
Stephan Pfahl: Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Switzerland.
==============================================================
I hope to have a copy of the paper soon – Anthony
UPDATE: Dr. Leif Svalgaard provides the paper, as did the AGU press agent Kate Ramsayer per my emailed request, along with a copyright admonishment. Thank you both. Figure 6a and 6b are interesting:
From the paper:
In agreement with the 20th Century Reanalysis central European temperature observations from the CRUTEM3 dataset [Brohan et al., 2006] from winters directly following a sunspot minimum are also significantly lower than the average temperature during the remaining winter seasons (Fig. 6a). The relation between cold winter conditions and sunspot activity is thus not specific to rivers alone (which could also be affected by a number of additional factors, for example warm water from the numerous powerplants constructed along the river). The strong variations of the time series in Fig. 6a, which are largely independent of the sunspot cycle, show the important role of internal, stochastic variability of the atmosphere for European winter temperatures. The relation shown above holds true only for central European temperatures. When the CRUTEM3 winter temperature data are averaged over the whole Northern Hemisphere, no relation to the solar minima is found.
This suggests a regional circulation pattern effect, as the authors state connected to figure 5a and 5b:
To identify the atmospheric circulation anomalies in the North Atlantic and European region associated with cold winters during solar minima, Fig. 5a shows the difference in the geopotential height fields at 500 hPa (Z500) between the winters directly following a year with a sunspot minimum and the remainder of the period 1871 to 2008, obtained from the 20th Century Reanalysis dataset [Compo et al., 1996]. A strong, statistically significant positive anomaly occurs over the eastern North Atlantic in the region of Iceland, while negative anomalies are found over the Iberian peninsula and over north-eastern Europe (the latter being not significant). These Z500 anomalies are associated with an enhanced northerly flow and cold air advection from the Arctic and Scandinavia
towards central Europe, leading to significantly negative temperature anomalies over England, France and western Germany (Fig. 5b). The centre of the cooling is in the region of southern England, the Benelux countries and western Germany down to middle Rhine area. Eastern and southern Germany are not effected as much as the above region. Accordingly, it is only the Rhine and possible some Dutch rivers that provide the possibility to reconstruct this specific temperature anomaly pattern, which corresponds to an anomalously negative NAO and a preference for blockings over the eastern North Atlantic.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 30, 2012 at 7:09 am
Neither Wolf or Wolfer observed or tested during a grand minimum and their reconstructions need to be tested against those that did.
Since Wolfer [and all serious modern observers] count everything visible, that is what the sunspot number is. The Wolfer to Wolf ratio is used only to convert Wolf’s observations to Wolfer’s scale [or the other way around – it doesn’t matter if you convert from Centigrade to Fahrenheit or the other way around, the temperature stays the same] and applies to Wolf’s observations only which since they were not taken during a grand minimum can be safely converted.
The real issue is if the sunspot number as observed during a grand minimum is the correct measure of solar magnetic activity. The Livingston and Penn observations and Tappings finding that the sunspot number is no longer a good proxy for the F10.7 flux are indications that, indeed, this may not be the case. This will also explain why with no visible sunspots, the sun manages still to modulate cosmic rays during Grand Minima.
The GSN and proxy records are all we have
And these are being seriously evaluated by the SSN and ISSI workshops and we’ll produce the final results in due cause. It is already clear which way the wind is blowing.
and the finished result via SIDC is so far unchallenged.
One the contrary, the SSN workshops are doing just that.
You have not provided any evidence that can refute the SIDC values for SC5/6.
What I’m showing is that SIDC just carries over Wolfer’s reconstruction and has dumped Wolf’s. So, when you claim that “LSC should compare more favorably to Wolf’s reconstruction of the Dalton Minimum cycles” you are off the rail, since the SC5 you compare with is Wolfer’s and not Wolf’s. This can be fixed, of course, by you simply changing the statement on your website to say ‘Wolfer’ instead of ‘Wolf’, which is what the honest person would do, right?
customzcar says:
August 30, 2012 at 4:23 am
“SIDC took the Wolfer version from 1902, nothing to do with Wolf”
Nothing to do with Wolf? Some documentation please?
SIDC: http://www.sidc.be/DATA/yearssn.dat
Wolfer/Wolf: http://www.leif.org/research/SC5-Wolf-Wolfer.png
Leif Svalgaard says: August 25, 2012 at 10:10 am
The winds are determined by the pressure patterns, not the other way around.
—————————————————–
Jetstreams transport huge amounts of air around the globe. Where they take the air from, tends to create low pressures; where they dump that air creates high pressures. My met tutor was convinced that jetstreams dictate the position of weather patterns, and I am firmly in that same camp.
Now you might say that jetstreams are influenced by where the hot surfaces are and where the cold surfaces are, but once those temperature differentials create a jetstream, it can forge its own track and go where it wants (determined by many factors, but the most influential is the position of the N.H landmasses). And where it goes to determines the site of the next high pressure system.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 30, 2012 at 8:18 am
Of the ~20 months shown on the graph, only 3 were around 0.5 or lower.
Incorrect. This year the figures are:
0.6
0.55
0.49
0.52
0.6
0.55
0.7
when a new area on the Sun is attacked by the spot-creating activity, then that is much more important than if an already existing group is changed by the appearance of a new spot
You are extrapolating too far. He does not mention specks and is rightly using his threshold to weed out non important new speck activity that has little impact on magnetic or F10.7 flux reading etc. Next you will be suggesting plage areas need a group count of 10 which of course is ridiculous but the same logic. The main reason for the group count of 10 is to bring into line the different observers and equipment etc outside of the k factor.
Calibration makes all the difference and the SSN workshop is attempting to get things right. So far, with good results
A general and meaningless statement. You know very well if the calibration is performed the end result is little different, SC5/6 will still be around the 50 SSN mark.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Wolf-L.pdf . In 1902 Wolfer changed the series for SC5:
Papers written in German are of little use. What we need is:
1. Where did Wolfer get his SC5 data from and what processing if any was involved.
2. All versions of Wolf’s reconstructions of SC5 and what methods were used in each.
3. What proxy records did Wolf and Wolfer use for the SC5 reconstruction.
And while your at it maybe you could explain the “red Wolf line” for SC5 on your graph at your website. The red line looks like the SIDC values.
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-1785-1810.png
So, when you claim that “LSC should compare more favorably to Wolf’s reconstruction of the Dalton Minimum cycles” you are off the rail, since the SC5 you compare with is Wolfer’s and not Wolf’s. This can be fixed, of course, by you simply changing the statement on your website to say ‘Wolfer’ instead of ‘Wolf’, which is what the honest person would do, right?
Your own graphs and statements in the past are contradictory, so I will wait until you have provided all the evidence. You have a tendency of being white one day and black the next.
You have not answered this question:
“The issue is that Wolfer tested his new method against Wolf over a very short time frame in terms of solar activity. As someone who professes to be an expert in this field, you should be questioning if 17 years is enough?”
This is fundamental to any conversion or adjustment factor applied between two data series. To ignore this issue places you in the “win at all cost” category instead of the pursuit of knowledge. The temperature analogy is not applicable to records that do not have a fixed scale, solar activity during a grand minimum is different to normal low activity, your own statements on L&P support this, but I still think their research is flawed.
Silver Ralph says:
August 30, 2012 at 3:22 pm
Jetstreams transport huge amounts of air around the globe. Where they take the air from, tends to create low pressures; where they dump that air creates high pressures. My met tutor was convinced that jetstreams dictate the position of weather patterns, and I am firmly in that same camp.
Two different things: 1) they don’t ‘take’ air, they are flowing according to the pressure, and 2) they certainly dictate the weather patterns, but that they still can do that while following the pressure.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 30, 2012 at 4:39 pm
“Of the ~20 months shown on the graph, only 3 were around 0.5 or lower.”
Incorrect. This year the figures are: 0.6 0.55 0.49 0.52 0.6 0.55 0.7
I stand corrected, only two were around 0.5 or lower
“when a new area on the Sun is attacked by the spot-creating activity, then that is much more important than if an already existing group is changed by the appearance of a new spot”
You are extrapolating too far.
I was quoting what Wolf said.
The main reason for the group count of 10 is to bring into line the different observers and equipment etc outside of the k factor.
No, as Wolf explains, the reason is that a new group is ten times as important as a new spot in an existing group.
“Calibration makes all the difference and the SSN workshop is attempting to get things right. So far, with good results”
You know very well if the calibration is performed the end result is little different, SC5/6 will still be around the 50 SSN mark.
Due to wrong calibration the GSN back then is off by a factor of at least two, and the Wolfer numbers [to the extent they as you claim support the GSN] as well.
Papers written in German are of little use.
Even people with a minimum of general education can read numbers. Get some of the people on your blog to translate for you. Or type in the text and let Google [or other translate services] do the translation for you.
What we need is…
It is all in the papers and in the explanations I have given. As an example Wolfer explains: “There were days on which the Sun was in fact observed, but the observer did not say anything about the occurrence of spots, presumably bcause he didn’t see any large spot groups, so that the sun shouldn’t then be considered to be free of spots”
The red line looks like the SIDC values
It is, in fact, and I should have been more careful. However the graph at the time I made it was intended to show the difference between the GSN and what is often loosely called the ‘Wolf’ number, meaning just the ordinary published number. The distinction between Wolf and Wolfer was not the main issue in this plot.
“So, when you claim that “LSC should compare more favorably to Wolf’s reconstruction of the Dalton Minimum cycles” you are off the rail, since the SC5 you compare with is Wolfer’s and not Wolf’s.”
Your own graphs and statements in the past are contradictory
Whatever you think of my statements, we are concerned here with your statement. and if you still maintain it is correct.
You have not answered this question:
“The issue is that Wolfer tested his new method against Wolf over a very short time frame in terms of solar activity. As someone who professes to be an expert in this field, you should be questioning if 17 years is enough?”
That was not a question to me, but a snide remark by you, but to be specific: yes experience, shows that 17 years [even a few years] is enough. In fact, once the initial learnig period is over, the k-factors tend to stay stable.
This is fundamental to any conversion or adjustment factor applied between two data series.
Since we are interested in converting Wolf to Wolfer during a time when there was no grand minimum [1849-1876] it doesn’t matter that the sunspot number [not solar activity] during a grand minimum may be different to normal low activity.
your own statements on L&P support this
obviously not as I’m talking about converting during non-grand-minimum activity.
What L&P are in fact saying is that during a real grand minimum, solar activity [measured in terms of magnetic field and cosmic ray modulation, and TSI] was not much different from what it was recently [and in the near future], but the process [whatever it is – and that is where research should go] by which that magnetic field gets concentrated into visible sunspots did not operate efficiently enough to register in the sunspot record.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 30, 2012 at 7:54 pm
I stand corrected, only two were around 0.5 or lower
You are quibbling on the margins again, the two values of 0.55 are significant.
Due to wrong calibration the GSN back then is off by a factor of at least two, and the Wolfer numbers [to the extent they as you claim support the GSN] as well.
Even if your calibration factor was employed SC5/6 would be inline with the SIDC values (except for a peak at 1801) so your arguments are moot. I think to apply one factor over 180 years is fraught with danger. You are implying that all observers before 1882 used a threshold the same as Wolf’s. There would be a telescope factor in the early period but whether that matched Wolf’s threshold is debatable. I think you have a long way to go.
Even people with a minimum of general education can read numbers.
If you are not going to provide the information I requested I can only assume the Wolfer values at 1902 are derived from one of Wolf’s reconstructions.
yes experience, shows that 17 years [even a few years] is enough. In fact, once the initial learnig period is over, the k-factors tend to stay stable.
This has never been tested (until today) and you are making assumptions. This is hardly scientific.
The current values for SC24 are showing a movement away from the Wolfer 0.6 factor, as more data is collected the picture will become clearer.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 30, 2012 at 11:41 pm
You are implying that all observers before 1882 used a threshold the same as Wolf’s.
Observers usually do not employ a threshold, as this is simply dumb. In any event, the calibration does not involve assumptions or thresholds, but simply take observations at face value.
The goal set for the 3rd workshop http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/3rd_SSN_Workshop is “to extend the reconciled SSN time series back from Schwabe (1826) through Staudach (1750)”, so we are making progress.
If you are not going to provide the information I requested I can only assume the Wolfer values at 1902 are derived from one of Wolf’s reconstructions.
Wolfer used observations from Kremsmunster, mostly made by Derfflinger, not one of Wolf’s published reconstructions. The data was received at Zurich a few months before Wolf’s death and had to wait until 1902 before Wolfer got around to revise SC5 and 6. So, when you claim that “LSC should compare more favorably to Wolf’s reconstruction of the Dalton Minimum cycles” you are off the rail, since the SC5 you compare with is Wolfer’s and not Wolf’s. Time to change that statement to “LSC should compare more favorably to Wolfer’s reconstruction of the Dalton Minimum cycles”.
“yes experience, shows that 17 years [even a few years] is enough. In fact, once the initial learnig period is over, the k-factors tend to stay stable.”
This has never been tested (until today) and you are making assumptions.
The yearly reports from Zurich contain k-values for all observers almost since the beginning and simple inspection bears out what the values are and how stable they are. For example, the k-factor for Cortesi since 1957 is 0.593 with a standard deviation of 0.027, thus varying very little from year to year.
The current values for SC24 are showing a movement away from the Wolfer 0.6 factor, as more data is collected the picture will become clearer.
Comparison with SIDC and NOAA http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-NOAA-k.png does show a change from 0.59 to 0.73 since 2008. One of the goals of the SSN workshop is to have the observers remove the 0.6 factor and simply report what they see, like NOAA is doing today [btw, their sunspot number is reported as 150 this morning]
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 31, 2012 at 8:12 am
Observers usually do not employ a threshold, as this is simply dumb. In any event, the calibration does not involve assumptions or thresholds, but simply take observations at face value.
Exactly, perhaps only Wolf applied a threshold. So a standard calibration factor over 180 years is wrong.
Wolfer used observations from Kremsmunster, mostly made by Derfflinger, not one of Wolf’s published reconstructions. The data was received at Zurich a few months before Wolf’s death and had to wait until 1902 before Wolfer got around to revise SC5 and 6.
Lets look at the Kremsmunster data , although one stations data will have to be of a very high standard. What have you got to show?
The yearly reports from Zurich contain k-values for all observers almost since the beginning and simple inspection bears out what the values are and how stable they are. For example, the k-factor for Cortesi since 1957 is 0.593 with a standard deviation of 0.027, thus varying very little from year to year.
Talking about off the rails. Its not about the k factor, but more about different phases of the dynamo.
like NOAA is doing today [btw, their sunspot number is reported as 150 this morning]
The speck ratio has been high in the last few days. The 150 value is non discounted but I would expect the LSC value to be much lower.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 31, 2012 at 8:49 am
Exactly, perhaps only Wolf applied a threshold. So a standard calibration factor over 180 years is wrong.
Nobody employs a standard calibration. We assume that Wolf and Wolfer knew what they were doing in keeping their own observations aligned. Perhaps you disagree.
Lets look at the Kremsmunster data , although one stations data will have to be of a very high standard. What have you got to show?
The data are in the papers linked to as well as remarks to the effect that the quality is low. SSN-Aurorae-SC4-andSC5.png
Comparison of Wolfer 1902 and Wolf 1876 http://www.leif.org/research/SC5-Wolf-Wolfer.png show th difference between the two. The size of the typeface is an indication of the ‘quality’ as perceived by the authors, although the overall quality was low.
Wolf writes: “Wolf-LXXXIII
684) Prof. Fr. Schwab, Adjunct to the Observatory in Kremsmuenster write to me [10 Aug. 1893]: “In our old observer journals there are scattered notes about sunspots, in particular for the years 1802-1830. The determination of local time was done at that time mostly by observing the altitude of the Sun, and at those occasions the sunspots present were shown on a small sketch, – more rarely [especially in the earlier years] accompagnied by a written remark; For the years 1825-1828 this was done with greater accuracy and completeness.
There are drawings, that clearly only contain the most obvious and large spots, for the years: [days per year]
1802 21 ; 1803 63; 1804 54; 1805 37; 1806 12; 1807 8; 1809 0; 1810 0; 1811 0; 1812 6;
1813 15; 1814 5; 1815 0; 1816 25; 1817 66; 1818 56; 1819 37; 1820 35; 1821 13; 1822 13;
1823 0; 1824 3; 1825 52; 1827 69; 1828 54; 1829 85.
During the last years of the series (1825-29) the distances of the spots from the limb were also measured to derive the elements of solar rotation, which however was never done as far as I know. – Should you find use for such notes, then I’m ready to collect the data arranged in a practical format, I just ask you to indicate the best way of doing this for your purpose”. – It is hardly necessary to remark that this letter from Prof. Schwab was of greatest interest to me, that I immediately returned an answer with the requested instructions and thanks for his offer. As result, Prof. Schwab sent me the following two data series, with the necessary annotations:
I. Observations from the Years 1802-1824.
The instrument, which until 1824 was regularly used, was s [already used by Fixlmillner) Brander Azimuthal-Quadrant with a telescope of 5 1/2 foot length. – As only in a few years there were remarks in addition to the sketches I thought that in terms of clear arrangement and simplicity, the usual tabular formatshould be chosen, in which spots were notes on only a small number of days [for this publication I elected to use exclusively the notation I have used for years with extra notes in a few cases]. For each day, on which the sun was observed without any mention of spots, I filled in a zero [which should not be construed to mean that the sun was without spots], but just refers to that the observer didn’t find anything of special note on the solar disk; the sketch was often omitted on account of lack of time.
On account of dying, Wolf didn’t get to use the data, and their use had to await Wolfer’s attempt to determine k-factors and calibration to his own standard in 1902, which is what SIDC simply took over ‘as is’.
Wolf also collected auroral reports. Here is his data for SC4 and 5: http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-SSN-Aurorae-SC4-and-SC5.png
“The yearly reports from Zurich contain k-values for all observers …”
Talking about off the rails. Its not about the k factor, but more about different phases of the dynamo.
We were talking about k-factors. And what do you know about the dynamo, anyway.
The speck ratio has been high in the last few days. The 150 value is non discounted but I would expect the LSC value to be much lower.
Sure, as you throw away real indicators of solar activity in a desperate attempt to create a Grand Minimum where there is none [so far]. Here is what the sun looks like in white light [some ‘specks’ are circled] and what real activity is [right panel]: http://www.leif.org/research/specks-and-activity.png
Wolf and Wolfer knew that even the smallest spots in barely visible groups are important indicators of solar activity and should not be thrown away. Wolf endorsed Wolfer’s method [by incorporating Wolfer’s observations in the official list] but continued [luckily] using Wolf’s old method himself precisely in order that the two series could be intercompared and calibrated to a common standard. That standard [now maintained for 135 years] is that of Wolfer. Because of Wolf’s foresight we are now able to extend that back to Wolf’s old observations and those of his predecessors.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 31, 2012 at 8:49 am
Lets look at the Kremsmunster data
In his determination of k-factors for Kremsmunster, Wolfer notes that the drawings from 1802-1808 [i.e. SC5] only show the largest spots. Since the sunspot number is mostly determined by the smallest spots, it was clear to him [as it should be to us] that using the drawings would underestimate the sunspot number, but it is hard to know by how much [making up data is hard to do]. At any rate, at the next SSN workshop we are going to take a hard look at all the available observations and proxies to sort out the mess and hopefully converge on a list we can all agree on and stand by. Stay tuned.
customzcar says: [or is that Geoff, hiding here?]
August 30, 2012 at 4:23 am
Yes and he specifically designed it to work with decent sized eruptions, not pointless specks.
No, as he said: “when a new area on the Sun is attacked by the spot-creating activity, then that is much more important than if an already existing group is changed by the appearance of a new spot” so his formula was specifically designed to take that into account, hence the factor 10.
Today we know that even a small single-speck group is just the tip of the iceberg of magnetic fields which we can directly observe. Wolf did the right thing by specifically designing his formula to take into account the importance of emerging activity.
There is a small speck near the SE limb that has been growing. Yesterday it [and other specks] looked like this: http://www.leif.org/research/specks-and-activity.png
The magnetic field from the speck injects energy into a filament nearby and note what that resulted in today: http://www.leif.org/research/specks-and-activity-pow.png
Specks are important in the schema of things as they show to the eye where magnetic flux [which cannot seen in an ordinary telescope] is emerging and help control the eruptions that propagate out into space and may influence the Earth, if in the right direction.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 31, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Specks are important in the scheme of things as they show to the eye where magnetic flux [which cannot seen in an ordinary telescope] is emerging and help control the eruptions that propagate out into space and may influence the Earth, if in the right direction.
If you are still current, this will nicely show how the growing specks disrupts the filament:
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/SDO_Self_Updating_6.htm
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 31, 2012 at 9:31 am
Nobody employs a standard calibration. We assume that Wolf and Wolfer knew what they were doing in keeping their own observations aligned. Perhaps you disagree.
You have employed a standard calibration for the pre Wolfer GSN values. I do not agree this can be done and probably needs a massive amount of research to resolve how to cover the many variables. One area you will run foul is that even if Wolf’s threshold is close to the limited power of the preceding telescopes he also added a reconstruction value to align with solar proxy records if I am not mistaken. If so you might find that some of SIDC values pre Wolf’s actual observations (1700-1800) are too high, Wolfer is certainly suggesting this for SC5 etc.
Lets look at the Kremsmunster data ,
Interesting, overall a small sample of low quality data seems to have been merged with Wolf’s original data. What we dont know is how it was merged and what procedures Wolfer used. Wolfer is directly attacking Wolf’s reconstruction factors that Wolf derived from solar proxy records.
We were talking about k-factors. And what do you know about the dynamo, anyway.
What I know is that a k factor may not be constant given different phases of the dynamo. You are assuming k factors dont move during times of grand minimum. This is especially relevant when comparing with Wolf’s threshold.
customzcar says: [or is that Geoff, hiding here?]
Nothing sinister going on, just wordpress failing to register the correct account. In regard to the importance of specks I think you are trying to build a mountain out of a molehill. In general terms a region is not important until it has reached a certain threshold. A small speck that emerges and fades after a couple of days is of little importance.
August LSC figures are in. A monthly mean of 37.1 showing a drop in activity over last month.
The SC14 line is getting further away from SC24.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/sc5_sc24.png
Geoff Sharp says:
August 31, 2012 at 8:10 pm
You have employed a standard calibration for the pre Wolfer GSN values.
The data seem consistent with a constant factor, but the calibration is done by carefully evaluating each observer: http://www.leif.org/research/What-is-Wrong-with-GSN.pdf
One area you will run foul is that even if Wolf’s threshold is close to the limited power of the preceding telescopes he also added a reconstruction value to align with solar proxy records if I am not mistaken.
The whole threshold issue is completely moot. Wolf discovered a marvelous correlation between sunspots and the diurnal variation of the geomagnetic field. This was his greatest discovery. Today we understand the physics of that relationship in quantitative detail and ultimately the relationship will form the basis for the SSN workshops final reconstruction. This is described in detail here http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic%20Calibration%20of%20Sunspot%20Numbers.pdf
If so you might find that some of SIDC values pre Wolf’s actual observations (1700-1800) are too high, Wolfer is certainly suggesting this for SC5 etc.
Considering that SC5 is mostly outside of 1700-1800, what Wolfer suggested does not apply to 1700-1800. In any event, we shall in due course resolve that question. Cosmic ray data for the 18th century suggests activity as high as in the 20th.
overall a small sample of low quality data seems to have been merged with Wolf’s original data.
Wolf’s original data was very scant. Wolf reports that the observers say that ‘they have never seen to many spots before as during SC5.
Wolfer is directly attacking Wolf’s reconstruction factors that Wolf derived from solar proxy records.
Actually not as there are no proxy records known to Wolf for SC5, except the poor auroral record.
What I know is that a k factor may not be constant given different phases of the dynamo.
‘Know’ and ‘may’ don’t go together. You may ‘assume’ or wishfully think that the k-factor ‘may’ be different, but it is meaningless to say that you ‘know’ that it ‘may’ be.
relevant when comparing with Wolf’s threshold
Wolf’s threshold was his greatest mistake. Luckily, Wolfer got rid of it [with Wolf’s agreement]
In general terms a region is not important until it has reached a certain threshold. A small speck that emerges and fades after a couple of days is of little importance.
Any small region is important. I showed a fine example here:
There is a small speck near the SE limb that has been growing. Yesterday it [and other specks] looked like this: http://www.leif.org/research/specks-and-activity.png
The magnetic field from the speck injects energy into a filament nearby and note what that resulted in today: http://www.leif.org/research/specks-and-activity-pow.png
Specks are important in the scheme of things as they show to the eye where magnetic flux [which cannot seen in an ordinary telescope] is emerging and help control the eruptions that propagate out into space and may influence the Earth, if in the right direction.
If you are still current, this will nicely show how the growing specks disrupt the filament:
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/SDO_Self_Updating_6.htm
Geoff Sharp says:
August 31, 2012 at 8:10 pm
Wolf’s threshold is close to the limited power of the preceding telescopes he also added a reconstruction value to align with solar proxy records if I am not mistaken.
The whole threshold issue is completely moot, most of the preceding telescopes were much larger than Wolf’s, e.g. http://www.aip.org/history/cosmology/tools/pic-first-telescopes-hevelius.htm . Wolf discovered a marvelous correlation between sunspots and the diurnal variation of the geomagnetic field. This was his greatest discovery. Today we understand the physics of that relationship in quantitative detail and ultimately that relationship will form the basis for the SSN workshop’s final reconstruction. This is described in detail here http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic%20Calibration%20of%20Sunspot%20Numbers.pdf
Geoff Sharp says:
August 31, 2012 at 9:29 pm
August LSC figures are in.
LSC is ill-conceived and poorly executed and has no value. SIDC values for August is 61.7 [although they may alter that a bit after final quality control], compared to 66.45 for July. When SIDC gives us the smoothed values we can compare with SC14.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 31, 2012 at 9:29 pm
August LSC figures are in.
Already the smoothed values for SC24 has reached [and passed] those for SC14:
http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-SC24-overlap.png
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 31, 2012 at 10:17 pm
Already the smoothed values for SC24 has reached [and passed] those for SC14:
http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-SC24-overlap.png
Your graph looks dodgy, cant you make it clearer so we can see some detail. It says it has been corrected for the Waldmeier jump but the SIDC values look untouched?
Done properly it looks like this:
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/sc5_sc24_less_wald.png
SC14 is towering above the SC24 record which ever way you look it.
I will come back to your other points tomorrow.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 1, 2012 at 12:59 am
“Already the smoothed values for SC24 has reached [and passed] those for SC14:
http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-SC24-overlap.png”
It says it has been corrected for the Waldmeier jump but the SIDC values look untouched?
You correct for the Waldmeier jump by increasing SC14 by 20%.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 31, 2012 at 9:48 pm
SIDC values for August is 61.7 [although they may alter that a bit after final quality control], compared to 66.45 for July. When SIDC gives us the smoothed values we can compare with SC14.
The quality-controlled value for August from SIDC is 63.1, and the latest smoothed value is 66.9 up from 65.5. For SC14 the corresponding smoothed value was 53.5, or corrected for Waldmeier 1.2*53.5 = 64.2.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 1, 2012 at 12:59 am
“Already the smoothed values for SC24 has reached [and passed] those for SC14”
cant you make it clearer so we can see some detail.
Here is the version for people with poor eyesight:
http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-24-Smoothed-Adj.png
Note that the minima to start on clearly are 1902 and 2009. If you wish to deceive, you can choose another minimum year, e.g. 2008, but that is clearly not supported by the data.
The interchange between Leif and Geoff has been very informative but I prefer to watch current developments rather than seek ultimate wisdom from a wide range of historical parameters that need large numbers of adjustments and subjective interpretations to make them meaningful.
A few years of watching solar activity, the behaviour of the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere, ocean heat content, cloudiness, jetstream behaviour, surface temperature trends and a plethora of other phenomena will soon resolve all the currently hotly debated issues.
Stephen Wilde says:
September 1, 2012 at 10:02 am
A few years of watching solar activity .. and a plethora of other phenomena will soon resolve all the currently hotly debated issues
No, not at all, these are complicated systems and a few years will not resolve anything. The relevant time scale is centuries.
“a few years will not resolve anything. The relevant time scale is centuries.”
A shorter period of observation near an inflection point such as the change between cycle 23 and 24 will be quite sufficient.
We can already see that a wide range of climate linked parameters changed their trends at the same time as the sun moved from active cycle 23 to quiet cycle 24.
If the sun stays quiet and the changes of trend are maintained then there will be the answer.