Story submitted by Cornelis de Jager
(past president ICSU;past pres. COSPAR)
In a recent publication entitled Terrestrial ground temperature variation in relation to solar magnetic variability, including the present Schwabe cycle, Cornelis (Kees) de Jager and Hans Nieuwenhuijzen, from the Space Research Organisation of the Netherlands have analysed the dependence of the global earth temperature on the polar as well as the equatorial magnetic fields. The new aspect in this research is that all earlier investigations in this field only sought for the dependence of the terrestrial ground temperature on the number of sunspots, which is a “proxy” for the equatorial magnetic fields of the sun. But the sun has two big magnetic areas, the equatorial and the polar one. In this research both are included.
In their analysis the Utrecht scientists restricted to the relatively long-term variation of both fields as well as the temperature, such in order to exclude short-term phenomena such as temperature variations due to volcanoes or processes like El-Nino.
By including the two magnetic field areas in their analysis it could be shown that during the major part of the four centuries investigated, i.e. the period 1610 till around 1900 – 1950 , the average terrestrial ground temperatures depend solely on solar magnetic field variations. After 1900 there is an increasing excess in the temperature which is ascribed to anthropogenic activity. After the impressive Grand Maximum of the 20thb century the sun went through an exceptional, not before observed phase transition that lasted relatively long, i.e. from about 2005 till 2010.
Usually, the transitions between solar variability phases takes no more than one to two years. During that transition period and after that, solar activity was exceptionally low. The consequent small contribution to the terrestrial temperatures is the cause for the standstill in the rise of temperature observed since the middle of the 20th century.
The above can be illustrated in figure 1, the diagram shows three curves. The middle one is the average terrestrial ground temperature (dots) through which a smoothed average curve is drawn .(The LOWESS technique is used for smoothing). The upper line shows the solar contribution and the bottom curve is the difference between the two. It shows a nearly flat variation which demonstrates that the long-term component of terrestrial temperatures is solely due to the variation of the sun’s magnetic fields. The average “zero-line” show a very slow , yet unexplained, increase over the centuries.
The paper is published in Natural Science vol. 5, pp. 1112- 1120, 2013 (open access). It can also be consulted at http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2013-CdeJ-HN-Sun-climate-NS-5-1112.pdf
Related articles
- A link between the solar magnetic field and weather patterns on Earth may explain our lower than normal severe weather in 2013 (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Commentary on the Article about the Interplanetary Magnetic Field influences (wattsupwiththat.com)
The temperature record, as displayed, is entirely fictitious. Mannly, even. GIGO.
Carla says:
October 31, 2013 at 5:38 pm
This anticorrelation is due to heating of the exo- and thermosphere during maximum solar activity, which leads to a higher neutral …
You are confusing effects due to heating by Ultraviolet and the effects of the solar wind.
William Astley says:
October 31, 2013 at 5:56 pm
William: Lief you make statements without links to peer reviewed papers.
We have been here before and I have linked to many peer reviewed papers, e.g. to this peer reviewed paper debunking the doubling of the open flux: http://www.leif.org/research/The%20IDV%20index%20-%20its%20derivation%20and%20use.pdf
Perhaps you should pay more attention to the peer reviewed literature..
Hi, Dr. Svalgaard,
Did you enjoy the Victor Borge (in Copenhagen) video I posted the other day?
Your non-scientist student,
Janice
Janice Moore says:
October 31, 2013 at 9:06 pm
Did you enjoy the Victor Borge (in Copenhagen) video I posted the other day?
What is not to like ;-). I have seen him perform live several times, even back in Copenhagen where he was known as Børge Rosenbaum [in the same building where my office was].
Dr. Svalgaard,
Good!
And, hurrah for the Danes. #(:))
Janice
Can’t be other way round? Teprature influences the magnetic field? I will be very happy if you could click on my name for the cause and solutions to CC.
lsvalgaard says:
October 31, 2013 at 8:18 pm
William Astley says:
October 31, 2013 at 5:56 pm
William: Lief you make statements without links to peer reviewed papers.
We have been here before and I have linked to many peer reviewed papers, e.g. to this peer reviewed paper debunking the doubling of the open flux: http://www.leif.org/research/The%20IDV%20index%20-%20its%20derivation%20and%20use.pdf
Perhaps you should pay more attention to the peer reviewed literature..
William:
It appears you are attempting to avoid answering the question. I specifically provided peer reviewed papers (1999, 2004, and 2013) written by multiple authors to support the assertion that:
1) We were living in a grand solar magnetic cycle maximum (Note past tense as the solar magnetic cycle is declining. The decline in solar activity is the greatest decline in 8000 years based on an analysis of multiple proxies.)
2) The modern age grand solar maximum correlates with the warming of the planet
3) The solar magnetic cycle activity in the modern age grand solar maximum is the highest in terms of modulation of cosmic ray flux in 10,000 years based on an analysis of multiple proxies.
In addition to the peer reviewed papers I provide a link to a 2013 BCC interview of the senior scientist Lockwood. Lockwood’s comment in that interview also supports the three above assertions.
The peer reviewed paper you provided a link to disputes Lockwood’s 1999 paper. Lockwood’s 1999 paper is being vindicated as the solar magnetic cycle declines. It is odd that you do not note that fact. The paper you quote does not appear to dispute the fact that we were living in a grand solar maximum. Do you or do you not have peer reviewed papers to dispute the peer review papers that I quoted to support the three very important assertions made above?
http://www.eiscat.rl.ac.uk/Members/mike/publications/pdfs/1999/170_Lockwoodetal_nature.pdf
A Doubling of the Sun’s Coronal Magnetic Field during the Last 100 Years by M. Lockwood, R. Stamper, and M.N. Wild
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7012/abs/nature02995.html
Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years by S. K. Solanki , I. G. Usoskin, , B. Kromer, , M. Schussler , & J. Beer
“According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967.full
“9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings” by
Friedhelm Steinhilber, Jose A. Abreu, Jürg Beer, Irene Brunner, Marcus Christl, Hubertus Fischer, Ulla Heikkilä, Peter W. Kubik, Mathias Mann, Ken G. McCracken, Heinrich Miller, Hiroko Miyahara, Hans Oerter, and Frank Wilhelms, February 14, 2012
This also is an interesting paper see figure 1.
Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: New observational constraints by I.G. Usoskin, S.K. Solanki, and G.A. Kovaltsov http://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.0385v1.pdf
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Real-risk-of-a-Maunder-minimum-Little-Ice-Age-says-leading-scientist
“According to Professor Lockwood the late 20th century was a period when the sun was unusually active and a so called ‘grand maximum’ occurred around 1985. Since then the sun has been getting quieter. By looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, he has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years. Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years. He found 24 different occasions in the last 10,000 years when the sun was in exactly the same state as it is now – and the present decline is faster than any of those 24.” http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2013-1/download/lrsp-2013-1Color.pdf
A History of Solar Activity over Millennia
I was suspicious about the curves and wiggles and particularly the endpoints when I realized that the smoothing period of 18 years was larger (by one) than the “hiatus”. That is exactly how declines are hidden.
A rotating conductive object in a varying magnetic field responds by changing its rotating rate. Is it too bold to say climate change correlates with changes in the length of the day (LOD)? I don’t think so.
Maybe gravitational influences exceed Tesla’s torque by 2 orders of magnitude. Maybe the torques only affect some fluid portion of the planet.
lsvalgaard says:
October 31, 2013 at 11:50 am
The point is that the magnetic flux from the Sun did not increase dramatically from the 19th to the 20th century.
The point in my opinion is that the solar activity actually did.
The article states:
“The upper line shows the solar contribution and the bottom curve is the
difference between the two. It shows a nearly flat variation which
demonstrates that the long-term component of terrestrial temperatures is
solely due to the variation of the sun’s magnetic fields.”
-I have problem already with the use of the “*solely *due to the variation of the sun’s
magnetic fields” – I think nothing in climate is solely due to one factor and I tink the temperature rise definitely is not solely result of the solar magnetic field variation – if it is result of it at all, not speaking “defined” by it…
And the “nearly flat variation” – looks to me more like a joke than a serious scientific claim.
I have cardinal problem with the graph too – and I don’t wonder something
like the “nearly flat variation” one deduces from it, when it is so unreal.
Besides the question where the authors got the “hockeyshtick” temperatures –
and especially where they got the temperatures from 17 and 18th century, comparable to solar indices anyway – only comparable direct solar indices we have from 18th century is SSN. Which shows definitely something completely else than the authors depict and more or
less directly falsifies core claims from their paper straight away.
How the real direct solar proxy data look one can see again here:
http://tumetuestumefaisdubien1.sweb.cz/SSN-300-Trends.PNG.
I note, that the data are even corrected for too high slope according to your
suggestions.
And even so they show not dramatically, but anyway rising trends in the solar activity in the 20th century – and even one certainly doesn’t see there any “Grand maximum” – which is another thing I have problem with in the graph – and here I completely agree with you – the prominent 20th century trend can be without any doubt detected there anyway.
Even better it can be seen at this graph:
http://tumetuestumefaisdubien1.sweb.cz/SSN-300-Fig1.png
we have already discussed.
The graph shows clearly very prominent solar activity trends – and I in fact actually created it with sole intention to falsify your claim that it is “observational fact” that there is “no trend in solar activity last 300 years”.
But paradox is that except the linear regression lines (my Czech Open Office offers as “Linearni regrese” and one unfortunately can’t change it) I didn’t use any OLS trends whatsoever and instead I just plotted the 100, 50 and solar cycle SSN averages. The rising tendency in the past is I believe visible on first glance – and also the currently falling tendency (The average for current SC24 is the average “so far”) and I think the almost SSN 10 difference between 18th and 20th century averages speaks for itself – because the all time 1700-2013 ISN record SSN average is 58.5 (after the correction suggested by you), so the change between 18th and 20th century is in order of 15+% of it – and I also note the difference between SSN average of 1st and 2nd half of the 20th century is almost 35% of it on the arbitrary SSN scale!
This all I think shows there is rather nothing like “near flat variation”, and there indeed was rise of solar activity in 20th century – although not drammatical – unlike now, where is clearly the drammatical decline – which btw could be not only quantitative but also qualitative – as the spectral data seem to suggest, especially in the visible and SWIR regions. I will rather not elaborate publicly, but when one sees the most recent solar spectrum from SORCE available (2010) and its variation and compares it to the spectrum just half decade before and its variation and compares it all to TSI record from the very same satellite, one has feeling of either something is rotten in NASA data handling or if not then worse – one would in such case like to exclaim: forget global warming, there could be something much worse happening…
Leif,
I assume that during most recent cycles the solar activity in the southern hemisphere was higher than the activity in the northern hemisphere. If one simply adds up the SSNs per hemisphere, one finds for SC 23:
– northern hemisphere: ‘3838’
– southern hemisphere: ‘4308’. So the activity is about 12% higher in the southern hemisphere.
How can this huge difference between the activity in two hemispheres be explained?
Concerning SC 24, the most recent data show
– northern hemisphere: ‘1256’
– southern hemisphere: ‘946’.
Can we conclude that from now on – during SC 24-, the activity in the southern hemisphere will be mostly higher than in the northern hemisphere?
Last week when people asked me what I thought of this paper I responded:
“AGW propaganda?”
William Astley says:
November 1, 2013 at 1:33 am
The paper you quote does not appear to dispute the fact that we were living in a grand solar maximum.
It shows that the purported 130% increase did not happen. Lockwood has since then admitted that the open flux did not more than double, but rather increased from 1900 to mid-century and has now decreased to values similar to those of 1900.
Do you or do you not have peer reviewed papers to dispute the peer review papers
We have been here before but you seem not to have paid attention.
here is a peer reviewed paper: http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler07qsr.pdf
“recent solar activity is high, but not exceptional with respect to the last 1000 yr”
here is a peer freviwed paper: http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler05nat_nature04045.pdf
“extended analysis of the radiocarbon record reveals several periods during past centuries in which the strength of the magnetic field in the solar wind was similar to, or even higher than, that of today…our reconstruction indicates that solar activity around AD 1150 and 1600 and in the late eighteenth century was probably comparable to the recent satellite-based observations.”
here is a peer reviewed paper: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004.pdf
“…they do not indicate unusually high recent solar activity compared to the last 600 years”
here is a peer reviewed paper: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf
Figure 3, red symbols
here is a peer reviewed paper: http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf
Figure 10, showing that the open flux during rge middle of the 19th century was no different from that in the middle 20th century. Figure 14 [from the peer reviewed Steinhilber 2010] showing that the open flux in the 18th century is not different from that in the 20th.
rikgheysens says:
November 1, 2013 at 7:30 am
So the activity is about 12% higher in the southern hemisphere.
How can this huge difference between the activity in two hemispheres be explained?
I don’t think it is all that ‘huge’.
during SC 24-, the activity in the southern hemisphere will be mostly higher than in the northern hemisphere?
I think for the rest of the cycle the South will dominate.
Here is more on those asymmetries: http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf
In reply to: lsvalgaard says: November 1, 2013 at 8:25 am
William: The problem is solved, the paradox is resolve/removed as to what caused past cyclic global warming and cooling. You quoted older papers that were incorrect and have been superseded. The Maunder minimum is return (there is an explanation for why the planet cooled during the Little Ice age, very low period of solar magnetic cycle activity and why the planet warmed during the Medieval warm period, very high period of solar magnetic cycle activity) The recent grand solar maximum is returned. Furthermore the 2012 paper notes the high resolution long term climate record tracks the solar cosmogenic isotope changes (planet warms when the solar magnetic cycle is high and there is low cosmic ray flux and the planet cools when the solar magnetic cycle is low and there is high cosmic ray flux), which as the paper notes: “is remarkable because the Earth’s climate has not been driven by the Sun alone.” This is fortunate as this provides a physical explanation as to why there is cyclic global climate change in the past. My faith in the scientific process is returned.
The 2012 paper notes the cosmic ray flux during the Maunder minimum was 1.6 times greater than current, see figure Fig. 3. (C) Same as (B), but zoom-in of the past millennium. Capital letters mark grand solar minima: O: Oort,W:Wolf, S: Spörer,M: Maunder, D: Dalton, G: Gleissberg.
The older papers you quoted concerning cosmogenic isotope analysis were incorrect. They used the old Antarctic Be10 record which does not capture Be10 changes as the rate of snowfall in that region has not sufficient to capture high temporal changes in Be10. That explains why the Greenland Be10 record which is high temporal resolution did not agree with the old low temporal resolution Antarctic Be10 record. The 2012 paper uses a high resolution Antarctic ice core and uses multiple radionuclide records. As the 2012 paper notes there is strong correlation of past climate changes and solar activity which “is remarkable because the Earth’s climate has not been driven by the Sun alone.”
The following are key quotes from the paper.
“The common signal represents a low-noise record of cosmic radiation, particularly for high frequencies, compared to earlier reconstructions, which are only based on single radionuclide records. On the basis of this record, we then derived a reconstruction of total solar irradiance for the Holocene, which overall agrees well with two existing records but shows less high-frequency noise. A comparison of the derived solar activity with a record of Asian climate derived from δ18O in a Chinese stalagmite reveals a significant correlation. The correlation is remarkable because the Earth’s climate has not been driven by the Sun alone.”
“By combining several radionuclide records with PCA as done in this study, an assessment of the systematic uncertainty can be done. The common signal in radionuclide records describes about 70% of the variance, implying that the system effects cause the remaining 30%. These system effects are removed by using only the first principal component. The robustness of PCA was tested by applying a jackknife method, applying PCA to subsets of radionuclide records by leaving out single records. The jackknife uncertainty is on average 5% (SI Appendix, Section S8), which is significantly smaller than the large (greater than 50%) variations due to changes in solar activity between periods of low solar activity like the Maunder minimum (20) and of high solar activity like the past decades.”
“…So far most reconstructions were based on only one single radionuclide record, which makes detection and correction of these deviations impossible. Here we combine different 10Be ice core records from Greenland and Antarctica with the global 14C tree ring record using principal component analysis. This approach is only possible due to a new high-resolution 10Be record from Dronning Maud Land obtained within the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica in Antarctica.…”
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967.full
“9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings” by
Friedhelm Steinhilber, Jose A. Abreu, Jürg Beer, Irene Brunner, Marcus Christl, Hubertus Fischer, Ulla Heikkilä, Peter W. Kubik, Mathias Mann, Ken G. McCracken, Heinrich Miller, Hiroko Miyahara, Hans Oerter, and Frank Wilhelms, February 14, 2012
lsvalgaard says: “My problem with the paper is: After the impressive Grand Maximum of the 20th century There was no such thing.”
Sorry Lief, but pointing to your Sun Spot counting disagreement paper, (again), is not going to cut it.
Do you have scientific method of counting and weighting Sun Spots accurately that eliminates human bias, and the results from that method of counting and weighting? Results that can then be compared to current means of counting Sun Spots that you are in disagreement with.
William Astley says:
November 1, 2013 at 9:58 am
My faith in the scientific process is returned.
Confirmation bias always wins.
That explains why the Greenland Be10 record which is high temporal resolution did not agree with the old low temporal resolution Antarctic Be10 record.
You didn’t pay attention to this peer reviewed paper: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004.pdf
“…they do not indicate unusually high recent solar activity compared to the last 600 years”
As a result of the ISSI team 233 meetings the cosmic ray proxies are being revised again and the paper you like is already obsolete.
Darren Potter says:
November 1, 2013 at 10:36 am
Do you have scientific method of counting and weighting Sun Spots accurately that eliminates human bias, and the results from that method of counting
Counting sunspots is very scientific. Human bias can be eliminated by comparing with the geomagnetic record. The comparison shows good agreement. You can see more about that here: http://www.leif.org/research/swsc130003p.pdf and here http://www.leif.org/research/Using-Old-Geomagnetic-Data.pdf
tumetu etc says
1) The rising tendency in the past is I believe visible on first glance
2) here could be something much worse happening…
henry says
1) I did a similar thing with the ssn data that I got somewhere and also found an upward trend, but the correlation rsquared was 0.0, (less than 0.05)
that tells you something?
if you look from 1950 to now the line is pretty straight.
So I reckon it is improved detection techniques that caused the up-trending in the first place.
Forget about SSN, rather look at maximum temperatures.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
2) it is globally cooling now but that is not a catastrophe other than the droughts at >[40] latitudes from around 2021-2028 on the great plains of the americas (Canada & USA)
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
It’s true that direct observation would be better. It make take a new research satellite to do that.
HenryP says:
November 1, 2013 at 11:42 am
“1) I did a similar thing with the ssn data that I got somewhere and also found an upward trend, but the correlation rsquared was 0.0, (less than 0.05)
that tells you something?”
Yes, tells (I somehow happen to have couple of university exams from statistics…), but you somehow forgot to tell me what correlation. Correlation of what with what?
“if you look from 1950 to now the line is pretty straight.”
Again, line of what? If you mean a linear trend of SSN 1950-2000, it is actually even descending – only petty problem with it is, that if you don’t understand statistics, you can’t know that it has no meaning whatsoever, because it is arbitrary period trend-line from high amplitude, asymmetric (in both dimensions – if it tells you something) quasi-periodic signal on arbitrary scale, with population of only ~5 cycles. If you want to get something meaningful from quasiperiodic signals as SSN for shorter periods you must pretty well know what you are actually doing.
There are of course ways how to make meaningful linear trends with periodic signal – it is not rocket science: you must chose meaningful periods – and there is also way how to estimate meaningful trends without OLS at all – that’s the way of averaging – as on the second picture I linked (again for you).
There is also way how to show linear trends from SSN using its OLS trends. If you want idea how to show there was prominent trend in the 20th century SSN, and also in its 2nd half and with profile exactly coinciding with the last warming period, look here – as you can see, animated for easier understanding, the points for constructing the red and blue curves are the OLS trend right tails, trend vectors, I note the beginning of the periods are exactly official SSN beginnings of SC13 and SC20 – or here – the points for constructing the red and blue curves are trend means for the periods (exactly minima to minima and minima to maxima) – which is the central value of the OLS trend describing periodic signal level change for the period.
The reasons why researchers don’t find the trends in the solar indices are very likely that they don’t understand statistics sufficiently for them to get meaningful results – it is most probably the reason of the epic fail of Lockwood and Frohlich 2007 “1987 claim” that the solar activity declined since 1987 although at period length scales where it has any sense to make trends of solar activity from SSN it in fact rose well into the 2000s – and their claim can be ultimately falsified by sole, moreover flat OLS trendline 1964.8-2006.12 from ISN – so their claim is now obsolete and was obsolete already in time of their infamous paper publication in 2007, because the rising SSN trend actually turned into descending already in March 2006, so they could find out then …if only they would know what they’re doing (…of course if they just don’t want to get the meaningful results, because it would inevitably collapse their confirmation bias.)
The reasons why researchers don’t find good correlation between say sea surface temperature and solar activity indices are that the relation between temperature and insolation is physically mediated by heat content, constantly dissipating from the sea surface (at rate dependent on 4th power of the sea surface temperature, moreover in considerable part escaping as latent heat, because water has actually ways lower emissivity than useful fachidiots like Trenberth imagine) but created by solar EM radiation absorbtion in considerable depths, way below the points where the sea surface temperature is actually measured, moreover different wavelengths penetrate different depths and some of them variate in phase with solar cycle (UV), some in counter-phase (visible) and some once in phase and once in counterphase – so they can’t find good correlation solar activity-sea surface temperature in the first place, for reasons rarely anybody from them understands, which nevertheles are in fact established and sound physics and statistics of more or less college level. -That somebody isn’t able to find some relation, say because the one is not cappable to find it, doesn’t in any sense mean the relation doesn’t exist.
2) it is globally cooling now but that is not a catastrophe other than the droughts at >[40] latitudes from around 2021-2028 on the great plains of the americas (Canada & USA)
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
Here you most probably don’t know a bit about what I was talking about – intentionally cryptically, only intended for Leif to which the reply was originally addressed to – because I’m responsible decent person and I don’t want to cause confusion and alarm with some ominous finds I made from the SORCE SIM spectral data when going beyond the Ermolli et al 2013 methods and conclusions – at least before I check with NASA the data integrity to make sure that what I’ve found is not another artifact of some sort and prepare whole thing for official publication, explaining thoroughly what I think my finds mean (which only what I’m willing to elaborate for now have to do with IR variability, which in some important regions behaves in the current solar cycle considerably differently than Ermolli et al purport and with possible global implications way beyond just droughts at some places in America).
Reading back I just have to respond to dr Svalgaard. I am always happy he responds to the solar threads but the confirmation bias he accuses others of is firing back at himself too sometimes. Just two posts above in response to William Astley he says:
”
You didn’t pay attention to this peer reviewed paper: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004.pdf
“…they do not indicate unusually high recent solar activity compared to the last 600 years”
As a result of the ISSI team 233 meetings the cosmic ray proxies are being revised again and the paper you like is already obsolete.
”
The paper William Astley citates is however from 2012 and is newer then the Berggren et al 2009 paper Leif directs to. Even worse is that the 2012 paper actually references to the Berggren paper so the authors surely took notice of it. The ISSI team meeting I can’t say anything about but it too is older then the paper from Astley (moreover Leif is leader of team 233).
In regard to the Grand Maximum that Cornelis de Jager the guest author here mentions and Leif always strongly opposes too I would like to mention that De Jager started his astronomy study in 1939. He will have been looking at the sun for quite a long time and if he chooses to ignore Leif’s adjustments for 1945 I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Gerard says:
November 1, 2013 at 6:21 pm
The paper William Astley citates is however from 2012 and is newer then the Berggren et al 2009 paper Leif directs to
Newer papers are not necessarily ‘better’. Having looked at the Sun for a long time is not always good. You can go blind, both literally and figuratively. Often the younger generation have a more nuanced view. de Jager ignores the advice of the sunspot community [e.g. http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home ] likely because it doesn’t fit with his pre-conceived ideas. This is a common human foible, that we all are afflicted with [at least to some degree].
Gerard says:
November 1, 2013 at 6:21 pm
moreover Leif is leader of team 233
what is that supposed to mean? I’ll interpret it generously to mean that I therefore know what I’m talking about. But check out the team members: http://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base.pdf
Title: Long-term reconstruction of Solar and Solar Wind Parameters
Co-Organizers: Leif Svalgaard (USA), Mike Lockwood (UK), Jürg Beer (Switzerland)
Team members: Andre Balogh (UK), Paul Charbonneau (Canada), Ed Cliver (USA), Nancy Crooker (USA), Marc DeRosa (USA), Ken McCracken (Australia), Matt Owens (UK), Pete Riley (USA), George Siscoe (USA), Sami Solanki (Germany), Friedhelm Steinhilber (Switzerland), Ilya Usoskin (Finland), Yi-Ming Wang (USA)
The very best in the business.
lsvalgaard says: “Counting sunspots is very scientific. Human bias can be eliminated by comparing with the geomagnetic record.”
I am taking that as a No in answer to my question.
In that your answer implies that counting of sunspots is still done by human, thus subject to bias, and requiring bias corrections dependent and unique to human doing the counting. Bias corrections that would be open to debate. Along with results being unverifiable in that each sunspot counting is a one time event.
Instead of say using a program written to determine size and count of sunspots based on scanned in images that capture a window in time. A program which provides reproducible results, when fed same previously analyzed images. A program by its nature that would eliminate individual bias, and would also encourage an agreed upon grouping of sunspot sizes by those using the program to analyze sunspots.
Darren Potter says:
November 1, 2013 at 10:09 pm
In that your answer implies that counting of sunspots is still done by human, thus subject to bias
I don’t know what you mean by ‘bias’. The counting is subject to random errors. With many hundred of people all over the world, these errors cancel out and the count becomes unbiased. Now there is one weak link in this, namely the use of Locarno as a reference station. If Locarno is wrong, everybody becomes wrong [but the same way]. There are two ways to deal with this: 1) compare Locarno with a large subset of other stations to check for any drifts [which is done], and 2) to compare with other measures of solar activity, e.g. the 10.7 cm microwave flux or the geomagnetic effects. Since these other indicators do not represent exactly the same physics there can still be deviations, but they will be known and can be corrected for. What is wrong in this is to say that because there are humans in the loop, the results will be ‘biased’. It is precisely the opposite, because there is one instrument that is not changing and that is the human eye [averaged over hundreds of people]. So, we can be sure that there is a solid baseline. There are two basic counting methods: unweighted [where every spot is counted just once] and weighted [where a spot is counted according to its size]. The difference between the two methods can be [as is being] determined by running the two methods in parallel. We have 400 years of experience in counting sunspots, so we know what we are doing. And there are rules for how to group spots, etc, but experience has shown that it is better not to have too many rules and simply let people count what they think they see. We deal with the differences between people’s counts by statistics. This works well. Some people think there is ‘political bias’ and that the counting is deliberately in error. This is pure nonsense as the counters come from countries all over the world.
Instead of say using a program written to determine size and count of sunspots based on scanned in images that capture a window in time.
There are such programs, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Watson3.pdf
They confirm that the human counting works fine.
“It shows a nearly flat variation which demonstrates that the long-term component of terrestrial temperatures is solely due to the variation of the sun’s magnetic fields.”
I don’t understand the above at all. Can someone explain how they come to this conclusion ?
This paper is saying that anthropogenic activity is causing temperatures to increase at the rate of ~0.3 degrees per century currently. So the random 2 degrees that is probably meaningless and that the politicians enjoy quoting is 600 to 700 years away.
It would be interesting to see this magnetic stuff combined with other solar stuff, TSI (or integrals of), UV and so forth. At the end of the day, the sun is the only significant source of warmth on this planet. Unless mankind’s terawatt energy use adds up to a significant amount of heat.