The solar data from the NOAA Space Weather prediction center has been posted, and like the global temperature, there isn’t much change. Sunspot numbers are down slightly, but still up from most of 2012/2013. The double peak looks more prominent.
Solar radio flux shows a similar double peak pattern.
And the Ap Magnetic index is down 6 units, and continues to bump along the bottom compared to the last solar cycle. The solar dynamo continues to be sluggish.
Has Leif made any comment on his earlier ‘welcome to solar max’ note?
But the sun has no effect on climate right?
What I’ve said: 65, perhaps heading TO a Dalton, but not a Dalton and certainly not heading into a Maunder. Not that 1 example of each is much of a statistically valid dataset to be certain, that’s settled, for sure ….
The climate catastrophists can sell books based on Ice-aggedon, also.
“Scientists now believe that the intensity of sunspot cycles is an indicator of the overall brightness of the sun, which changes on cycles of a century and does have an influence on climate. Research by Dr. Judith Lean, a solar physicist at U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C. and colleagues noted a strong correlation between solar output and temperatures since 1610. ..a period during the “Little Ice Age”, from the 17th to early 18th centuries called the “Maunder Minimum,” was characterized by a Sun that was 0.25% dimmer than it is now. This change goes well beyond the 0.1% dimming ascribed to the 11-year sunspot cycle, so that a climate impact becomes much more probably. In addition, Lean assumes that the change in UV output from the Sun must have been 6 times larger than that of visible light (a fact which, if true, holds interesting implications for the history of the ozone layer).
Lean’s study found that “solar forcing may have contributed about half of the observed 0.55°C surface warming since 1860 and one third of the warming since 1970″. ”
Not according to Michael Mann though. According to his study 100% of the warming was caused by the hot air coming out from his mouth and a further 100% recorded on his graph from the methane proceeding from his backside.
Polar field is still hovering around zero, the SC24 max could be up to a year away.
james says:
April 8, 2014 at 3:10 pm
But the sun has no effect on climate right?
.
No.
None.
None at all.
Of course not.
A scurrilous suggestion.
Now concentrate on the worry at hand, stop looking over there.
Bloke down the pub says:
April 8, 2014 at 3:08 pm
Has Leif made any comment on his earlier ‘welcome to solar max’ note?
Solar max is here to stay for a while. My prediction of something in the 70s for the smoothed SSN still looks good. All the ‘experts’ here who were fishing for 60s or lower were certainly off the mark.
Leif Svalgaard,
If you read this thread, can you advise approximately when do you (and your past prediction associates) think you will make your prediction of cycle 25?
Will you make a cycle 25 prediction around the end of 2015 or start of 2016?
Eternally curious . . . : )
John
I am fascinated by the apparent “twin peak” of cycle 23 and 24. Is it due to phase shifting of two internal cycles, or phase differences between North and South Solar hemisphere?
Such solar data interesting no doubt but as anecdotal as one often inaccurate temperature min & max per day. It is certain that such data (>200 years versus ~ 4.5 billion years of history) that describing solar behavior & surface temperature data are both pitifully inadequate to describe the full range of chaotic behavior or draw conclusions about correlations.
Where uncertainty abounds, conclusions are suspect. What’s the rush to judgement good for ?
Unmentioned is that solar max for Cycle 24 is up to 73.2 and with higher activity over the last 6 months, it will go up again next month. lsvalgaard’s 2004 max prediction is looking remarkable!
The burst of solar southern hemisphere SS activity for the last 3 months has Dr David Hathaway’s cycle 24 prediction curve peak shifted rightward about 6-7 months from early 2013 (compare predict 2013/12 to 2014/4) to about August 2013. That will give a peak cycle 23 to peak cycle 24 an almost 13 year duration, while 22-23 peak to peak duration was about 10.2 years.
Cycles 23-24 are looking more like cycles 4-5, which 5 was the beginning of the Dalton minimum which lasted 35 years (cycles 5-7).
Leif you can bet that those who suggested figures
In the 60 s wont accept their fallibility.
When the solar activity increases again, so will the warming. THAT’S when the effects of carbon will kick in. Models will prove it.
John Whitman says:
April 8, 2014 at 3:53 pm
Will you make a cycle 25 prediction around the end of 2015 or start of 2016?
When the polar fields have reversed and the new polar fields are stable enough to show the annual variation. This usually happens three or four years before minimum, so sometimes after 2017 would be my guess.
Robert of Ottawa says:
April 8, 2014 at 3:57 pm
I am fascinated by the apparent “twin peak” of cycle 23 and 24. Is it due to phase shifting of two internal cycles, or phase differences between North and South Solar hemisphere?
Phase shift between North and South. Cycle 14 did the same: http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-24-Groups-Months.png
Joel O’Bryan says:
April 8, 2014 at 4:00 pm
Cycles 23-24 are looking more like cycles 4-5
The data for SC4 and 5 are so uncertain that any comparison is not worth much.
Doug Proctor wrote: “and certainly not heading into a Maunder.”
As you note 1 cycle is not anywhere close to a good indicator, but on the same token we really don’t know what the lead-in cycle (1635-1645) to the Maunder min (1645-1715) looked like by modern SSN methods since 1849. 1630 was still the very beginning of the telescope age and the early 1611-1650 solar observers were just learning what to count and their records are spotty. The SSN reconstructions from GCR proxies leading into 1645 are gross approximations at best.
Bottomline, the use of the word “certainty” (or its alternative form certainly) should be used with great caution in estimating future solar activity until the cycle is underway.
Steve O wrote: “Models will prove it.”
Humor and laughter are supposedly good for the heart. So Steve, Thanks for the ROFL episode!!!!
Steven Mosher says:
April 8, 2014 at 4:10 pm
Leif you can bet that those who suggested figures In the 60 s wont accept their fallibility.
People rarely do. My bet is that they will blame the sunspot counters for counting ‘specks’ that Rudolf Wolf would never have counted…
Q: BioBob wrote: What’s the rush to judgement good for ?
A: For the CAGW adherents, a “rush to judgement” (as in “its settled science so shut up”) is good for about $1Trillion+ from the industrialized countries over the next decade in direct transfer payments to the developing world and “green” energy projects. The indirect costs of reduced GDP growth are even far worse.
lsvalgaard April 8, 2014 at 4:15 pm
Phase shift between North and South. Cycle 14 did the same: http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-24-Groups-Months.png
I do not understand how there can be a magnetic moment without its opposite. A North without a South? Those flux lines must be really messed up, which means the currents in the plasma generating these fluxes are rushing around like turbulent water currents in the St. Lawrence River in the 1000 islands area.
Robert of Ottawa says:
April 8, 2014 at 4:37 pm
I do not understand how there can be a magnetic moment without its opposite. A North without a South?
Each sunspot is a collection of magnetic poles and their flux balances to a net of zero. The sunspot number [or the number of groups] is the number of such balanced collections, so the there is no problem with poles without ‘opposites’.
Joel O’Bryan sugested”
“Cycles 23-24 are looking more like cycles 4-5, which 5 was the beginning of the Dalton minimum which lasted 35 years (cycles 5-7)”
Cycles 5-7 don’t look much like Cycle 24. In fact, with Cycle 24’s burst of recent activity over the last 6 months is starting to look like something very different from previous cycles. It’s secondary peak is unusually high and will probably get higher next month:
See updated smoothed ISN as of April 1st here:
http://www.pbase.com/image/155157279/original.jpg
they do count specks which were not counted before
james says:
April 8, 2014 at 6:04 pm
they do count specks which were not counted before
As I predicted those people would say…
As the field intensity of the magnetic flux tubes continues to decline the magnetic flux tubes which rise up from the solar tachocline to form sunspots on the surface of the sun, are now torn apart by the turbulent forces in the solar convection zone. The result initially is many small sunspots (pores) hence the increase in sunspot number which is also helped by the use of magnogram enhanced images of the sun.
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_4096_4500.jpg
(See this link for a magnogram enhanced image of the sun)
http://www.solen.info/solar/
It appears the silly game of enhancing the sunspot number is coming to an end. If the trend (reduction in magnetic field strength of the magnetic tubes that form sunspots) continues the turbulent forces in the solar convection zone will tear the magnetic flux tubes apart and there will only be magnetic flux residue on the surface of the sun. i.e. No sunspots.
It is interesting that the solar northern polar field appears to be collapsing and the average solar polar magnetic field intensity continues to decline cycle by cycle.
http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html
predicting it does not make it untrue
I have been tracking Solar and Temps in areas for some time now.
I have noticed when weather conditions are stable without large storms or active weather patterns, surface temps and Solar TSI spikes are are noticeable.
Big Spike in TSI since October showed up in connection with PDO numbers in same time frame.
https://mobile.twitter.com/NJSnowFan/status/453473352980508673/photo/1
I have noticed the PDO reacts very quickly to TSI spikes.
The AMO has a 5 to 25:year lag time. I feel it is because of the deep circulation cycle it has with the Gulf stream.
Leif
“People rarely do. My bet is that they will blame the sunspot counters for counting ‘specks’ that Rudolf Wolf would never have counted…”
Ya, I like to say the climate cant see spots. It sees TSI
lsvalgaard says:
April 8, 2014 at 4:15 pm
Robert of Ottawa says:
April 8, 2014 at 3:57 pm
I am fascinated by the apparent “twin peak” of cycle 23 and 24. Is it due to phase shifting of two internal cycles, or phase differences between North and South Solar hemisphere?
Phase shift between North and South. Cycle 14 did the same: http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-24-Groups-Months.png
—————————-
Excuse me eh, eh, eh just clearing my throat..
There may be some ‘other’ phase shifts related to the solar cycle progression that are also occurring, HEMISPHERICALLY.
Time-Variation of ENA Flux Observed by IBEX at the Heliospheric Poles: Has the Recovery Begun?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AGUFMSH23C2128R
Reisenfeld, D. B.; Janzen, P. H.; Bzowski, M.; Dayeh, M. A.; Demajistre, R.; Funsten, H. O.; Fuselier, S.; Kubiak, M. A.; McComas, D. J.; Schwadron, N.; Sokol, J. M.
…The magnitude and rate of decline was shown to be consistent with the observed decline in solar wind dynamic pressure during the previous solar minimum, once the lag time between solar wind observations at 1 AU and the return time of ENAs from the heliosheath was taken into account (Reisenfeld et al. ApJ, 747, 2012). When it became apparent in 2010 that the solar wind dynamic pressure was beginning to recover, it was expected that within a couple of years, the decline in ENA flux should cease and begin to turn around as well. Numerical models of an asymmetric heliosphere (e.g. Pogorelov et al. ApJ, 668, 2007; Opher et al. SSR, 143, 2009, and others) indicate that the distance to the termination shock (TS) should be significantly shorter toward the south ecliptic pole than toward the north. Thus it was expected that the turnaround in ENA flux should occur first at the south pole, then the north. Another expectation was that the ENA flux should begin recovery at the highest energies first, since such ENAs have a shorter travel time toward IBEX. The latest observations show that for ENAs arriving from the south pole, the data are consistent with a flattening in the ENA flux. At the north pole, there is no indication yet of a turnaround or flattening of the ENA flux, which is consistent with the expected greater distance to the TS…
Just want us to be aware of the our local interstellar neighborhood,(surrounding the heliosphere bubble) as it begins to unfold before our eyes…
It is interesting our heliospheric dent in the nose and consequential asymmetry in the northern and southern hemispheres on BOTH ends of the heliospheric bubble. Gees if it is East and West ends what is happening over the Northern and Southern ends…
Good Night
Maybe the sun can use some of that ENA flux and convert it into some solar fluxes……………..
William Astley says:
April 8, 2014 at 6:46 pm
As the field intensity of the magnetic flux tubes continues to decline the magnetic flux tubes which rise up from the solar tachocline to form sunspots on the surface of the sun, are now torn apart by the turbulent forces in the solar convection zone.
The flux tubes are always torn apart, nor, 50 years ago, 300 years ago, always.
The result initially is many small sunspots (pores) hence the increase in sunspot number which is also helped by the use of magnogram enhanced images of the sun.
There is no increase of small sunspots. On the contrary, the small spots are disappearing.
It appears the silly game of enhancing the sunspot number is coming to an end.
There is no such ‘game’. Only in your imagination.
james says:
April 8, 2014 at 6:55 pm
predicting it does not make it untrue
But knowing how sunspots are counted makes it untrue. If anything, we count too few sunspots.
Carla says:
April 8, 2014 at 8:49 pm
There may be some ‘other’ phase shifts related to the solar cycle progression that are also occurring, …Just want us to be aware of the our local interstellar neighborhood
Nothing that goes on out there affects the Sun or us in any way.
Well sun spots do have an affect on our climate. They deflect sub atomic gallactic rays from the earth, and therefore prevent as much cloud formation and rain of course. I learned this years ago when our lecturer told us, that sun spots affect rainfall, when Perth was suffering a water shortage. Sydney built a salination plant to compensate, that was run by 65 wind turbines, that drove the locals crazy. They’ve now closed it, I heard. He also said the rain would return when the sun became quiet again.
The current shape of the polar vortex at a height of 100 hPa. Galactic radiation has no effect on the circulation?
http://oi62.tinypic.com/ip8gp4.jpg
Low solar activity.
Region Liczba
plam słonecznych Klasa
Magn. Klasa
Krajobrazy
2026 16 β EAI
2027 3 β CAO
2029 1 α HRX
2030 3 β DAO
2031 7 β DAO
2032 4 β DAI
Sorry.
http://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en
Steven Mosher says:
April 8, 2014 at 7:53 pm
You are wrong. Should I say, as always?
TSI is less than meaningless, if that is possible.
What matters are the spectrum differences, as you would know if you actually wanted to keep up with the latest science rather than spewing worse than worthless lies, like your colleges on the CAGW gravy train.
UV flux at the top of the atmosphere correlates with surface temperature, but of course your cult can’t handle that truth.
Catherine Ronconi says:
April 8, 2014 at 10:02 pm
UV flux at the top of the atmosphere correlates with surface temperature
UV flux at the top of the atmosphere correlates well with TSI…
All this discussion (dare I say bickering?) about sunspot counting leads me to wonder if a less subjective “count” could be made. It won’t soon help in interpreting past methods, but if objective and reproducible, it might be of help in future.
Here are my very rough thoughts: Assuming that “good” images of the sun can be obtained, a “count” might be a sequence of tuples, each tuple containing (a) # pixels in the spot (which may itself be a tuple of numbers corresponding to different degrees of darkness), (b) polar coordinates (on the sun’s disk, as viewed) of the spot’s “center”. The tuples might be in sequence according to, e.g., descending order of spot size (#pixels in spot). Together with the tuple list would be more data: (1) #pixels in the image of the sun and (2) longitude and latitude on earth of the observation (or other location data if the observation were from space), (3) time of observation, (4) ancillary info (such as the degrees of darkness) and (5) the picture itself.
Good idea or crazy idea? If good, I assume its already being done, or worked on. Standards bodies take their time…
NeedleFactory says:
April 9, 2014 at 12:12 am
All this discussion (dare I say bickering?) about sunspot counting leads me to wonder if a less subjective “count” could be made.
There are several such methods in use, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Watson3.pdf
and they generally show that the ‘eye’ counts are just fine. The main reason the ‘eye’ counts are good is simply that the instrument, the human eye, has not changed its sensitivity over time.
It’s nice to see that the second peak of the radioflux resembles with the second peak of cycle 23.
july 2002 coincides with september 2013 and the peak of december 2002 with february 2014. Over one year from now it will drop below 100 and interesting times of solar activity starts
lsvalgaard says:
April 8, 2014 at 4:15 pm
Robert of Ottawa says:
April 8, 2014 at 3:57 pm
I am fascinated by the apparent “twin peak” of cycle 23 and 24. Is it due to phase shifting of two internal cycles, or phase differences between North and South Solar hemisphere?
Phase shift between North and South. Cycle 14 did the same: http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-24-Groups-Months.png
Several remarks:
– Your version of SC 24 is not updated. The update is shown here:
http://users.skynet.be/fc298377/Sun/Update_SC_24.pdf
– You mention again cycle 14 [as being similar to SC 24], but you know very well that SC 14 had several peaks, not a “twin peak”.
– If a SC has to be chosen to be similar to our current SC (what I do not like because each solar cycle has its own features), I prefer SC 12. The second peak of SC 12 was higher than the first peak, what is also the case now. (During solar cycles 21 – 23, the second peak was lower than the first peak).
N.B.: I admit that your prediction for the smoothed SSN of SC 24 is very remarkable! I thought it would be in the 60s but now I confess I was wrong.
Apparently we know ALL about how the Sun affects the Earth, the UNIPCC said so in their dictat on its forcing values, (with a very low level of scientific understanding, of course) & that the Sun has no significant affect on climate. Yet when asked to explain the lack of warming over the last 15-17 years, they include low Solar activity as one of three reasons as to why that is! Most strange! For a body that possesses 99.9% of the mass of the Solar system to have no affect upon Earth’s climate takes some believing imho! We still don’t know fully how that damned thing works anyway, so how can it be dismissed so readily?
Alan Brit
The magnetic field decreases from 22 cycle, hence 17 years. What would be like will fall more?
http://www.climate4you.com/images/Ap-Index%20Since199001.gif
This is best illustrated galactic radiation levels.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=03&startyear=1991&starttime=00%3A00&endday=09&endmonth=04&endyear=2014&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
It is worth to remember what they looked like predictions.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/ssn_predict_orig.gif
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/ssn_predict_2009.gif
And such is the current forecast.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Cycle22Cycle23Cycle24big.gif
Double peak, exceptionally long cycle.
Guess what’s next?
rikgheysens says:
April 9, 2014 at 1:33 am
– You mention again cycle 14 [as being similar to SC 24], but you know very well that SC 14 had several peaks, not a “twin peak”.
SC24 is not done yet, there will be more peaks, and there have already been at least three peaks: http://www.leif.org/research/Active%20Region%20Count.png
– If a SC has to be chosen to be similar to our current SC (what I do not like because each solar cycle has its own features)
Comparing cycles for details is silly. And, BTW, cycle 14 numbers are too low. Should be increased 20% if you want to compare with modern cycles.
Alan the Brit says:
April 9, 2014 at 1:57 am
so how can it be dismissed so readily?
Because the evidence is so weak.
Good heavens people! Of course the Sun can vary Earth’s surface temperature as has been shown in well-known calculations, which follows the solar cycles. The sub-components of TSI can be ignored as those sub-components have less energy available to change things, which would result in tiny calculations that even the ever stoic Leif would be hard pressed to show us without laughing.
But back to TSI. Trouble is, that TSI calculated signal is buried wayyyy deep in our much larger surface temperature data, be it here on Earth, up in a balloon, or picked up via satellite. Why? The Earth has the ability, all by itself, to block or let in sunshine to the surface and does so in chaotic ways in the short and long term. It also has the ability, all by itself, to store a great deal of that Sun-sourced heat into the oceans and then belch it back out in chaotic ways in the short and long term. Efforts, good ones, have been made to sort out that chaotic signal we call temperature data into its separate components. But that is still all done via calculations, since we cannot separate out the temperature components like we can peas from night shade. And some of those calculations are still a bit of a stab in the dark.
As for the anthropogenic portion of CO2 acting as some huge extra addition to greenhouse gas, that is also laughable. Yes, over land, anthropogenic additions to greenhouse gas may heat things up a bit more but only temporarily. Most of the affect is cleared away at night. Over oceans, it has no ability to heat up the oceans. None. Zilch. Nada. Longwave IR heating energy re-radiated by greenhouse gasses does not have the energy to penetrate to any depth at all into water and what does hit the surface skin is almost immediately evaporated off. The anthropogenic portion of that LWIR heating could only be detected by ridiculously tiny calculations, much like the sub-components of TSI.
I will wait for the ever present solar folks here who will write that some kind of tiny subcomponent of solar output is a butterfly in the upper atmosphere which then powerfully overcomes Earth’s own intrinsic variability that then changes our intrinsically variable atmosphere (jets, large semi-permanent pressure systems, etc) which then powerfully changes, nay…even has the power to reverse, intrinsically variable surface temperature trends and anomalies. All presented of course without plausible mechanisms or verifiable calculations.
Thanks, A. Good post.
Thanks, Leif. Good interpreting and explaining.
Pamela Gray says:
April 9, 2014 at 7:16 am
Excellent summary of several pertinent points.
lsvalgaard
I did not see any comments from you on the following from Richard. Would be interested in your commments, particularly regarding: ” Lean’s study found that “solar forcing may have contributed about half of the observed 0.55°C surface warming since 1860 and one third of the warming since 1970″”.
Richard says:
April 8, 2014 at 3:30 pm
“Scientists now believe that the intensity of sunspot cycles is an indicator of the overall brightness of the sun, which changes on cycles of a century and does have an influence on climate. Research by Dr. Judith Lean, a solar physicist at U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C. and colleagues noted a strong correlation between solar output and temperatures since 1610. ..a period during the “Little Ice Age”, from the 17th to early 18th centuries called the “Maunder Minimum,” was characterized by a Sun that was 0.25% dimmer than it is now. This change goes well beyond the 0.1% dimming ascribed to the 11-year sunspot cycle, so that a climate impact becomes much more probably. In addition, Lean assumes that the change in UV output from the Sun must have been 6 times larger than that of visible light (a fact which, if true, holds interesting implications for the history of the ozone layer).
Lean’s study found that “solar forcing may have contributed about half of the observed 0.55°C surface warming since 1860 and one third of the warming since 1970″. ”
Jim G says:
April 9, 2014 at 8:06 am
Lean’s study found that “solar forcing may have contributed about half of the observed 0.55°C surface warming since 1860 and one third of the warming since 1970″
Here is what she said recently:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/LeanRindCauses.pdf
“Solar-induced warming is almost an order of magnitude smaller. It contributes 10%, not 65% [Scafetta and West, 2006, 2008], of surface warming in the past 100 years and, if anything, a very slight overall cooling in the past 25 years”
lsvalgaard says:
“Solar-induced warming is almost an order of magnitude smaller. It contributes 10%, not 65% [Scafetta and West, 2006, 2008], of surface warming in the past 100 years and, if anything, a very slight overall cooling in the past 25 years”
So where did the temperature increase during high cycles, whether you include an increase in CO2?
ren says:
April 9, 2014 at 8:54 am
So where did the temperature increase during high cycles, whether you include an increase in CO2?
Don’t be so lazy, read the f***ing paper
lsvalgaard
I’ll say more growth of ice in the southern hemisphere always outstrips the growth of ice in the northern hemisphere. Power southern Jetsreamu is huge. Look better what is happening in the stratosphere. It will be a strong cooling of the ocean to the south.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/temp50anim.gif
“Well sun spots do have an affect on our climate. They deflect sub atomic gallactic rays from the earth, and therefore prevent as much cloud formation and rain of course.”
1. there is no secular trend in GCR and no secular trend in TSI.
2. there is no consistently detectable relationship between GCR and cloud formation ( at any pressure levels).
Leif
“Catherine Ronconi says:
April 8, 2014 at 10:02 pm
UV flux at the top of the atmosphere correlates with surface temperature
UV flux at the top of the atmosphere correlates well with TSI…”
#####################
Too funny.
Is it gives food for thought?
New NOAA research has revealed unprecedented changes in ocean carbon dioxide in the tropical Pacific Ocean over the last 14 years, influencing the role the oceans play in current and projected global warming and ocean acidification. Natural variability has dominated patterns in ocean CO2 in this region, but observations now show human activity contributes to increasing CO2 levels.
“Carbon dioxide in tropical Pacific waters has been increasing up to 65 percent faster than atmospheric CO2 since 1998,” says Adrienne Sutton, a research scientist with the NOAA Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean at the University of Washington and lead author of the paper in the journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles. “Natural cycles and human-caused change appear to be combining to cause more rapid change than our models predict.”
http://research.noaa.gov/News/NewsArchive/LatestNews/TabId/684/ArtMID/1768/ArticleID/10499/Carbon-dioxide-in-the-tropical-Pacific-Ocean-is-increasing-faster-than-expected.aspx
A very generic question for Lief.
Double peaks, reduced amplitude, and wider span all suggest a pair of (coupled?) processes that can occur in phase, leading to a high single maximum, and comparatively narrow cycle or occur out of phase, splitting and reducing the semi-independent maxima and widening the overall cycle.
Is there such a decomposition of e.g. NH and SH processes in solar dynamics that have some explanatory power in the structure of the solar cycle? Might we expect a further splitting and reducing in the next cycle?
rgb
Robert Brown says:
April 9, 2014 at 10:57 am
Is there such a decomposition of e.g. NH and SH processes in solar dynamics that have some explanatory power in the structure of the solar cycle? Might we expect a further splitting and reducing in the next cycle?
We already addressed that up-thread
http://users.skynet.be/fc298377/Sun/Update_SC_24.pdf
More on the asymmetry here: http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf
Robert Brown says:April 9, 2014 at 10:57 am
………
Dr. Brown
As far as I understand it, you are correct. Some solar experts suggest that there are twin dynamos one for each hemisphere, running slightly out of phase, as one might be inclined to conclude from the second graph . The curve has fundamental of about 105 years, which is one of longer periods in the solar variability; Dr. S often refers to it as Gleissberg cycle, but G himself thought it to be 75-80 years.
numbers are 118.628 & 96.964 .
lsvalgaard said: April 9, 2014 at 8:26 am: “Here is what she [Judith Lean] said recently”:
“Solar-induced warming is almost an order of magnitude smaller. It contributes 10%, not 65% [Scafetta and West, 2006, 2008], of surface warming in the past 100 years and, if anything, a very slight overall cooling in the past 25 years”
Actually this is the complete quote:
“None of the natural processes can account for the overall warming trend in global surface temperatures. In the 100 years from 1905 to 2005, the temperature trends produce by all three natural influences [ENSO, volcanic eruptions, maxima of solar cycles] are at least an order of magnitude smaller than the observed surface temperature trend reported by IPCC [2007]. According to this analysis, solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100
years, not 69% as claimed by Scafetta and West [2008] (who assumed larger solar irradiance changes and enhanced climate response on longer time scales).”
If the 3 natural events are an order of magnitude less than the warming trend, then there must be some other natural events that caused the warming, because even the IPCC says that humans were not responsible for global warming in the first half of the 20th century.
Solar influences are not limited to maxima of solar cycles. The fact is that the amount of radiation arriving from the Sun is not constant. It varies from the average value of the TSI—1,368 W/m2— on a daily basis.
And since the Maunder minimum in solar energy output, there has been a slow increase in the overall sunspots and solar energy throughout each subsequent 11-year cycle, except perhaps in the last cycle.
The fact is we do not know enough about the Sun’s radiation to dismiss it so glibly as a force on our climate.
We already addressed that up-thread
http://users.skynet.be/fc298377/Sun/Update_SC_24.pdf
More on the asymmetry here: http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf
So the two asymmetric processes are “independent” pole reversals in the NH and SH of the sun? Wow, imagining what happens to the interior magnetic field takes some serious visualization. Two independent dynamos with some sort of horrendous quadrupolar field during the split interval?
rgb
Dr. Brown
You can have some fun with these – number of models considered by Paul Charbonneau
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2010-3/download/lrsp-2010-3Color.pdf
Richard says:
April 9, 2014 at 12:56 pm
Solar influences are not limited to maxima of solar cycles. The fact is that the amount of radiation arriving from the Sun is not constant. It varies from the average value of the TSI—1,368 W/m2— on a daily basis.
It varies 70 W/m2 over the year because the Earth’s orbit is not circular.
And since the Maunder minimum in solar energy output, there has been a slow increase in the overall sunspots and solar energy throughout each subsequent 11-year cycle, except perhaps in the last cycle.
No, that is not correct, there has been no slow increase since 1700. Solar activity in each of the last the centuries has been roughly constant.
The fact is we do not know enough about the Sun’s radiation to dismiss it so glibly as a force on our climate.
The fact is we do not know enough about the Sun’s radiation to accept it so glibly as a force on our climate.
lsvalgaard says:
April 9, 2014 at 1:51 pm
No, that is not correct, there has been no slow increase since 1700. Solar activity in each of the last three centuries (18-20th) has been roughly constant.
There are number of articles on the quadrupolar field during reversals, far too complicated to follow, so I occasionaly listen to this one
vukcevic says:
April 9, 2014 at 2:02 pm
There are number of articles on the quadrupolar field during reversals, far too complicated to follow, so I occasionaly listen to this one
Which has been simplified too much and therefore is wrong in places. A correct exposition can be found here http://www.leif.org/research/Asymmetric-Solar-Polar-Field-Reversals-talk.pdf
with comments here:
http://www.leif.org/research/Talking_Points_for_Asymmetric_Reversals.pdf
The bottom line correct though: nothing unusual.
lsvalgaard says: April 9, 2014 at 1:51 pm
“It varies 70 W/m2 over the year because the Earth’s orbit is not circular.”
This was in response to “the amount of radiation arriving from the Sun is not constant. It varies from the average value of the TSI—1,368 W/m2— on a daily basis.
DAILY BASIS, and you are talking about the variation due to the Earth’s orbit (assuming a constant output of the Sun’s radiation). Does that make sense? The accurate output of the sun’s radiation has been measured by satellites for only a few years as I understand it. The past radiation output are based only on reconstructions.
“No, that is not correct, there has been no slow increase since 1700. Solar activity in each of the last three centuries (18-20th) has been roughly constant.”
Well that is in contradiction to NASA’s EarthObservatory. I know who I would rather believe.
“An 11-year running average shows only the long-term variation, which shows a rise in total sunspot numbers from 1700 until today. [Graph by Robert Simmon, based on data compiled by John Eddy (1650-1700) and the Solar Influences Data analysis Center (SIDC)]”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_03.php
lsvalgaard says: April 9, 2014 at 1:51 pm
“The fact is we do not know enough about the Sun’s radiation to accept it so glibly as a force on our climate.”
The fact is though we do not know enough about the Sun’s radiation to dismiss it so glibly as a force on our climate, we do know enough about the Sun’s radiation to accept it as a force on our climate.
Richard says:
April 9, 2014 at 2:50 pm
DAILY BASIS, and you are talking about the variation due to the Earth’s orbit (assuming a constant output of the Sun’s radiation). Does that make sense? The accurate output of the sun’s radiation has been measured by satellites for only a few years as I understand it. The past radiation output are based only on reconstructions.
Slide 6 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf shows the accurately actually measured TSI (red curve). You can clearly see annual variation. We are closest to the Sun in January so receive more TSI. The blue curve shows how the Sun has actually varied on a daily basis.
Well that is in contradiction to NASA’s EarthObservatory. I know who I would rather believe.
As Yogi Berra said: “it I hadn’t believed it, I wouldn’t have seen it”. You believe what fits your view point. A recent assessment of solar activity [by SIDC and me] shows there has been no trend over the past 260 years, e.g. see Figure xx12 of this draft: http://www.leif.org/research/ISSI-Book-Section-4.pdf.
The fact is though we do not know enough about the Sun’s radiation to dismiss it so glibly as a force on our climate, we do know enough about the Sun’s radiation to accept it as a force on our climate.
As Al Gore once said “if you don’t know anything, everything is possible”. Seems to apply here.
lsvalgaard says: April 9, 2014 at 3:07 pm
“A recent assessment of solar activity [by SIDC and me] shows there has been no trend over the past 260 years, e.g. see Figure xx12 of this draft”
By SIDC and you? Has SIDC accepted that draft of yours for publication? If not then maybe mentioning them is kind of name dropping? An appeal to authority?
However if we ignore your reference to Yogi Berra, who I believe is not an authority on Solar radiance, if we look at the graphs of the Zürich Sunspot Number, provided in your draft, then I can see that from 1875 to 1935, the peaks were around 100, increasing slightly, whereas from 1945 to 1995 more like 200, visually they seem to be more and have increased. However you have tortuously determined in your very clever paper that they have not.
Richard says:
April 9, 2014 at 3:33 pm
By SIDC and you? Has SIDC accepted that draft of yours for publication? If not then maybe mentioning them is kind of name dropping? An appeal to authority?
Here is the title and authors:
“Revisiting the Sunspot Number: A 400-year perspective on the solar cycle
Frédéric Clette (Director of SIDC), Leif Svalgaard, José Vaquéro, Ed Cliver (National Solar Obs.)
1. Introduction: the sunspot number needs to be recalibrated”
It is still a draft of a chapter of review book to be published in the fall by ISSI http://www.issibern.ch/
However you have tortuously determined in your very clever paper that they have not.
The Figure to look at is xx12. The raw Zurich numbers need correction, we all agree on that. You can learn more about this effort at http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home
lsvalgaard says: April 9, 2014 at 3:41 pm
“The raw Zurich numbers need correction, we all agree on that.”
When you say “we all” I presume you mean the authors of the paper. It would be curious of you didn’t. The point is who doesn’t agree with that and what are their viewpoints?
NASA has not revised their article. Till they do or accept your viewpoint that will have to stand as the alternative viewpoint to yours.
Richard says:
April 9, 2014 at 3:57 pm
lsvalgaard says: April 9, 2014 at 3:41 pm
When you say “we all” I presume you mean the authors of the paper. It would be curious of you didn’t. The point is who doesn’t agree with that and what are their viewpoints?
No, I mean the 30-40 top scientists who are participating in the SSN-Workshops
Figures 9 and 10 of http://www.leif.org/research/CEAB-Cliver-et-al-2013.pdf
http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130202035024/ssnworkshop/images/2/24/NSO-Jan-2013.png It is Clette in the green sweater in at the center and yours truly at the extreme right.
NASA has not revised their article. Till they do or accept your viewpoint that will have to stand as the alternative viewpoint to yours.
Things take their time. Alternative viewpoints are like ‘alternative medicine’, they don’t work.
In general we have found that resistance to a revision comes from people wedded to some other related worldview, e.g. a need to explain climate change. They will still cling to their alternative [wrong] view for decades to come.
lsvalgaard says:
April 9, 2014 at 3:07 pm
A recent assessment of solar activity [by SIDC and me] shows there has been no trend over the past 260 years, e.g. see Figure xx12 of this draft: http://www.leif.org/research/ISSI-Book-Section-4.pdf.
CET temperature records go as far as the start of the Maunder minimum (1659).
CET has a slope of 0.25 C/century.
But wait a minute, shuldn’t the CET respond to the flat TSI with no overall up-trend.
Well, depends how you look at it; the maximum insolation is at the end of June, and minimum at the end of December.
So do we have the highest trend in the June’s CET ?
I am sorry to say NO, June has near zero trend (10ex-4) all the way 1659 to 2013
What about December?
Now you are talking, December when the insolation is at its lowest, the CET has the highest up-trend of aprox 0.5 C/century
SSN – CET
Hmm….
Richard says:
April 9, 2014 at 3:57 pm
When you say “we all” …
You may go to http://specola.ch/ssn4/ and click on ‘Participants’ to see who will attend our final workshop in May where we’ll finalize the revision. Of course, there is still debate and controversy about some of the details [that is why we are having the final workshop to iron out those wrinkles].
If you have any real interest in solar activity you should closely follow our workshops [read the presentations]. If you do and form your own opinion, you’ll be ahead of the curve and escaping the mire of obsolete data. If you don’t, you are like this one http://www.leif.org/research/LaBrea-Tar-Pit.jpg
You have determined that Solar activity in each of the last three centuries (18-20th) has been roughly constant. For this so far as I can make out you have attacked previous observations with allegations of failing eyesight to imperfect instruments and supplemented them with cosmogenic nuclide concentrations in tree rings and ice cores. Have to extended your analysis / hypothesis to the Maunder minimum and determined that it was constant then too? What about the Medieval Warm Period? The ice ages? Does it hold rock steady through the ages? Remarkable hypothesis if it does.
Have you extended your analysis
Richard says:
April 9, 2014 at 4:32 pm
You have determined that Solar activity in each of the last three centuries (18-20th) has been roughly constant. For this so far as I can make out you have attacked previous observations
Wrong attitude. We have carefully re-analyzed the historical observations using modern methods and insight
Have to extended your analysis / hypothesis to the Maunder minimum and determined that it was constant then too? What about the Medieval Warm Period? The ice ages? Does it hold rock steady through the ages? Remarkable hypothesis if it does.
This is still a subject of debate. We are holding a workshop in Boulder, CO, in June to discuss this: http://www.predsci.com/eswe-workshop/eswe2-prog-v2.pdf so stay tuned. Some thoughts of mine [which are not yet shared by everyone at this point] are here: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard12.pdf
“The Maunder Minimum was not a serious deficit of magnetic flux, but
• A lessening of the efficiency of the process that compacts magnetic fields into visible spots
• This may now be happening again
• If so, there is new solar physics to be learned, let us not shy away from that!”
Richard says:
April 9, 2014 at 4:32 pm
Have to extended your analysis / hypothesis to the Maunder minimum and determined that it was constant then too?
A bit more: http://www.leif.org/research/swsc130003.pdf
See also http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf
“Therefore, the best estimate of magnetic activity, and presumably TSI, (me: and cosmic rays) for the least‐active Maunder Minimum phases appears to be provided by direct measurement in 2008–2009”.
Richard says:
April 9, 2014 at 4:32 pm
You have determined that Solar activity in each of the last three centuries (18-20th) has been roughly constant. For this so far as I can make out you have attacked previous observations with allegations of failing eyesight to imperfect instruments and supplemented them with cosmogenic nuclide concentrations in tree rings and ice cores.
——————————————————-
Nope, Leif had just cause, as he became aware of discrepancies in the counting method and began comparing them to other indices.. and discovered the sunspot series was in error.
It does not negate the fact that for most of my life time the solar cycle has been in medium high for consecutive cycles, bar one cycle 20. Lots to be said about the inflation of the heliosphere and of the inflation of Earth’s atmosphere..
The sun rock steady? Not exactly.. Most solar indices were low throughout this cycle 24. And presumably will be even lower in the next solar cycle.
Carla says:
April 9, 2014 at 5:40 pm
The sun rock steady? Not exactly.. Most solar indices were low throughout this cycle 24.
Of course the Sun is not rock steady, but my point was that the long-term strong increase the last 300 years did not happen. There are still 11-year and even 100-year cycles.
lsvalgaard says:April 9, 2014 at 4:58 pm
…attacked…
Wrong attitude. We have carefully re-analyzed the historical observations using modern methods and insight
I agree it’s the wrong attitude. There are plenty of eminent scientists who disagree with your pet theory that the sun has nothing to do with the warming since the maunder minimum. You have repeatedly pointed to your graph xx12 in support of your assertion that there has been no trend over the past 260 years in solar radiation and attacked any doubts about your assertion with comparisons to Yogi Berra and extinct mammals.
To do accomplish your assertion you have revised the Zürich Sunspot Numbers with a hypothesis that cosmogenic nuclide concentrations in tree rings and ice cores are a more accurate proxy of the sunspot numbers than the actual observations of astronomers from 1875 onwards, which clearly shows an increase.
Rather than stare at your findings and conclusions I would like to examine the basis of your hypothesis. The reason why I asked if you had extended the proxy back to the Maunder minimum and found the suns radiation to be the same was it would test your hypothesis for me. If you do find it to be the same it would be even more suspect to me than it is now.
Interestingly vukcevic says: April 9, 2014 at 4:12 pm:
“CET temperature records go as far as the start of the Maunder minimum (1659). CET has a slope of 0.25 C/century…. June has near zero trend (10ex-4) all the way 1659 to 2013… December when the insolation is at its lowest, the CET has the highest up-trend of aprox 0.5 C/century”
Hmm indeed
Robert of Ottawa says:
April 8, 2014 at 3:57 pm
I am fascinated by the apparent “twin peak” of cycle 23 and 24. Is it due to phase shifting of two internal cycles, or phase differences between North and South Solar hemisphere?
lsvalgaard says:
April 8, 2014 at 4:15 pm
Phase shift between North and South. Cycle 14 did the same: http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-24-Groups-Months.png
Leif does Solar cycle 23 and 22 show the same kind of “phase shift” cycles 24 and 14?
Leif does Solar cycle 23 and 22 show the same kind of “phase shift” [as] cycles 24 and 14?
Just thought I would let you know, the position of the sun to us, dictates seasonal changes, and that’s why the Northern hemisphere has reversed seasons to the Southern. But yesterday, Ayres rock or Ulura had a down pour, and if you look at the water erosion on its surface rocks, rain is not so much a rare event over the millions of years as people think. Also heavy rain and storms are heading towards eastern Australia and there is a cyclone 4 Ita heading for the Northern Queensland. Also dry parts in Australia received heavy rain. That pleased the farmers.
bushbunny,
The sun is the main driver of rain and weather in general to be honest!
vukcevic says: April 9, 2014 at 4:12 pm
“December when the insolation is at its lowest, the CET has the highest up-trend of aprox 0.5 C/century”
What is the December trend for the last few years, say from 1990 onwards? That would be interesting.
OK I did it. CET Trend line from 1990 to 2013
Jun – slightly up – not statistically significant
Dec – slightly down – not statistically significant
Annual – Flat – 0
Or more accurately: CET Trend from 1990 to 2013
June +0.17 C/decade
December -0.10 C/decade
Annual -0.03 C/decade
Richard says:
April 9, 2014 at 6:37 pm
There are plenty of eminent scientists who disagree with your pet theory that the sun has nothing to do with the warming since the maunder minimum.
That has nothing to do with the revision of the sunspot number, and BTW is good for funding…
To do accomplish your assertion you have revised the Zürich Sunspot Numbers with a hypothesis that cosmogenic nuclide concentrations in tree rings and ice cores are a more accurate proxy of the sunspot numbers than the actual observations of astronomers from 1875 onwards, which clearly shows an increase.
Nowhere in the papers I have linked to is there any use of the cosmogenic data. You have clearly not read the papers and are hence not worth having a dialog with.
If you do find it to be the same it would be even more suspect to me than it is now.
this shows your bias. No amount of data can rock your conviction.
Sparks says:
April 9, 2014 at 6:43 pm
Leif does Solar cycle 23 and 22 show the same kind of “phase shift” [as] cycles 24 and 14?
all cycles show a phase shift, sometimes large, sometimes smaller.
RGB,
“Two independent dynamos with some sort of horrendous quadrupolar field during the split interval?”
There is no such thing in existence as a “quadrupolar field”, there are always two polar fields, north/south, positive/negative, an observation of the distortion of these magnetic fields are the result of the interaction of their confined proximity, we can only measure the source of magnetic activity due to observing it’s interactions… during solar maximum the two polar fields (positive and negative) are overlapping around the suns equator which may give the impression of having a quadrapole (four poles) etc..
lsvalgaard
Whether the fact that for 14 years has significantly increased CO2 in the oceans is a temperature drop of water, if you have a different theory? 65% faster than in the atmosphere !
ren says:
April 9, 2014 at 9:24 pm
Whether the fact that for 14 years…
One does not make climate theories based on 14 years…
“Leif does Solar cycle 23 and 22 show the same kind of “phase shift” [as] cycles 24 and 14?”
lsvalgaard says:
April 9, 2014 at 9:06 pm
all cycles show a phase shift, sometimes large, sometimes smaller.
Leif, you went to the trouble to compare cycle 14 with 24 to show this “phase shift”, you dismissed talk of a double peak as a random spike, Nasa seen the logic of there being a possible double peak.
I would like to see your cycle 23 and 22 “phase shift” comparison. That’s if you have one. 😉
Richard says:
April 9, 2014 at 6:37 pm
There are plenty of eminent scientists who disagree with your pet theory …
I have no such theory. You and all those eminent scientists (perhaps 97% if you poll them) seem to have a theory. Convince me with evidence. What I have seen is too flimsy for me, but evidently you have a lower bar for gullibility. I guess it takes all kinds….
Sparks says:
April 9, 2014 at 9:32 pm
Leif, you went to the trouble to compare cycle 14 with 24 to show this “phase shift”, you dismissed talk of a double peak as a random spike, Nasa seen the logic of there being a possible double peak.
The ‘double peak’ is a dumbing down expression. There will be several peaks, we have already had three.
I would like to see your cycle 23 and 22 “phase shift” comparison.
You also do not seem to read the links I provide. In Figure 3 you can see the phase shift between reversals for the last four cycles.
lsvalgaard says: April 9, 2014 at 9:06 pm
Nowhere in the papers I have linked to is there any use of the cosmogenic data. You have clearly not read the papers and are hence not worth having a dialog with.
lsvalgaard says: April 9, 2014 at 3:41 pm
The Figure to look at is xx12. The raw Zurich numbers need correction, we all agree on that. You can learn more about this effort at http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home
http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home Leads to:
http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Cliver.pdf
Entitled “Why the Sunspot Number Needs Re-examination”
Which says among other things:
“We have two sunspot numbers, with no consensus on which is more accurate, a long-term term parameter is needed to tie space-age measurements of solar & solar wind activity to the cosmogenic nuclide data from tree-rings (14C) and ice cores (10Be)
– Sunspot number (since 1610)
– Geomagnetic data (since ~1720”
Richard says:
April 9, 2014 at 9:54 pm
“We have two sunspot numbers, with no consensus on which is more accurate, a long-term term parameter is needed to tie space-age measurements of solar & solar wind activity to the cosmogenic nuclide data from tree-rings (14C) and ice cores (10Be)
This is ‘the before view’ and why we need the revision. The reference to the cosmogenic data is to remind people that that data does not overlap with modern spacecraft data so we must use the sunspot number as a ‘calibration bridge’. Many people believe that the cosmic ray record supports their ideas [do you?], so it is important to get the record right. Recent revisions of the cosmic ray record [we have got more ice cores] promise that we can get to a good calibration with the revised sunspot series. You will learn about these in due course.
If historical of Zurich are understated, this does not mean that the 24 cycle may be weaker than we think ?
ren says:
April 9, 2014 at 10:05 pm
If historical of Zurich are understated, this does not mean that the 24 cycle may be weaker than we think ?
If anything, a bit stronger, or rather the cycles before 1947 were reported too weak, by some 20%.
lsvalgaard says: April 9, 2014 at 9:34 pm
“I have no such theory.”
You stated”there has been no trend over the past 260 years, e.g. see Figure xx12 of this draft: http://www.leif.org/research/ISSI-Book-Section-4.pdf.”
That is a theory, or hypothesis if you will. It does not agree with the Zürich Sunspot Numbers. It is only true if your Figure xx12 of your draft paper is true.
lsvalgaard says:
April 9, 2014 at 9:39 pm
The ‘double peak’ is a dumbing down expression. There will be several peaks, we have already had three.
The “double peak” is an important observation, I know it’s origin… there will be spikes no doubt! will there be a “double peak” predicted for cycle 25? have you got a solar cycle 23 and 22 “phase shift” comparison btw.
Let’s see what happens in the stratosphere above the equator.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/temp10anim.gif
Richard says:
April 9, 2014 at 10:09 pm
That is a theory, or hypothesis if you will. It does not agree with the Zürich Sunspot Numbers
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory “A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation”.
And indeed xx12 is based on the extensive analysis of the observational data, more details here:
http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard11.pdf
It is only true if your Figure xx12 of your draft paper is true.
So xx12 is based on the data we have, and we must accept it as true or nearly true [there is always some – small – uncertainty]
it does not agree with the Zürich Sunspot Numbers
It agrees very well with the revised Zürich Sunspot Numbers. The whole point of the exercise is to re-conciliate the Group Sunspot Number and the Zürich Sunspot Numbers and as Ed Cliver points out, we have succeeded in doing so, http://www.leif.org/research/Reconciliation%20of%20Group%20&%20International%20SSNs%20-%20Croatia.pdf
Sparks says:
April 9, 2014 at 10:10 pm
have you got a solar cycle 23 and 22 “phase shift” comparison btw.
I have linked to it several times. Here is one more time: http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf
See Figure 3 where all cycles show a shift between reversals. This is not a surprise as the dynamos in the two hemispheres are only loosely coupled, sometimes the North reverses first [as for the past 5 cycles], sometimes the South comes first, e.g. for cycles 18 and 19.
Leif,
That’s only sun spot activity in general in relation to a geographical north and south on the solar disk.
Sparks says:
April 9, 2014 at 11:16 pm
That’s only sun spot activity in general in relation to a geographical north and south on the solar disk.
sigh. The ovals show the polar field reversals…
Yep there’s a fundamental difference between geographical north/south and magnetic north/south.. just thought I should mention that.
Sparks says:
April 10, 2014 at 12:03 am
Yep there’s a fundamental difference between geographical north/south and magnetic north/south.. just thought I should mention that.
You don’t make sense [on the sun]. ‘Geographical’ refers to the Earth.
And on the sun there is no difference. The equator is the dividing line between polarities (cf. Hale’s law). There really isn’t any hemispherical ‘magnetic poles’ on the Sun. Just a collection of much smaller poles spread all over the surface and sometimes collecting near the rotational poles.
lsvalgaard says:
April 10, 2014 at 12:08 am
“You don’t make sense [on the sun]. ‘Geographical’ refers to the Earth.
And on the sun there is no difference…”
The solar disk is “Geographical” passing off geographical north/south sunspot activity as magnetic positive/negative activity is a good one.
What impact does mileage Jetstreamu for cooling of the Earth?
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/03/01/1200Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/equirectangular=-122.55,0,160
Sparks says:
April 10, 2014 at 12:24 am
The solar disk is “Geographical”
Use ‘rotational’ instead of ‘geographical’. Or even better: ‘heliographical’
Leif, I am gobbling down popcorn and diet pepsi like crazy! Wicked good discussion. And you even came out of stoic land to say “…f***ing…”. Spilled pepsi all over the puter screen on that one. I need to be reading up on administrative issues (am heading for an administrative interview next week). So please, give me a break and stop! I have other articles I should be reading right now!
Note to the wise and unwise, belief trumps data. The biases we all have can overcome any and all data and mechanisms that are contrary to our pet theory. Guard against it if you wish to have any hope of accurate debate and a path forward towards plausible paradigms.
Richard says:
April 8, 2014 at 3:30 pm
“Scientists now believe that the intensity of sunspot cycles is an indicator of the overall brightness of the sun, which changes on cycles of a century and does have an influence on climate. Research by Dr. Judith Lean, a solar physicist at U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C. and colleagues noted a strong correlation between solar output and temperatures since 1610. ..a period during the “Little Ice Age”,…
Lean’s study found that “solar forcing may have contributed about half of the observed 0.55°C surface warming since 1860 and one third of the warming since 1970″. ”
Not according to Michael Mann though. According to his study 100% of the warming was caused by the hot air coming out from his mouth and a further 100% recorded on his graph from the methane proceeding from his backside.
Well said — — in the case of Mann and Algore — we have the Blind leading the Dumkopf
ren says:
April 9, 2014 at 10:29 am
Is it gives food for thought?
New NOAA research has revealed unprecedented changes in ocean carbon dioxide in the tropical Pacific Ocean over the last 14 years, influencing the role the oceans play in current and projected global warming and ocean acidification. Natural variability has dominated patterns in ocean CO2 in this region, but observations now show human activity contributes to increasing CO2 levels.
“Carbon dioxide in tropical Pacific waters has been increasing up to 65 percent faster than atmospheric CO2 since 1998,” says Adrienne Sutton, a research scientist with the NOAA Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean at the University of Washington and lead author of the paper in the journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles. “Natural cycles and human-caused change appear to be combining to cause more rapid change than our models predict.”
And the connection — we are directly injecting CO2 into the tropical Pacific from all the exhaust of the Jet Ski’s ??
Where is the CO2 coming from that it can increase faster in the Tropical Pacific water — the presumed sink — than it does in the air above the Tropical Pacific — the presumed transport medium from the ultimate source — Mid Town Beijing?
Possibly an alternative explanation is needed — lots of eruptive release of CO2 by submarine volcanoes which eventually reaches the surface
Note to those who say — ah we can fingerprint the CO2 to be fossil in origin — well the CO2 from the volcanoes will also be “fossil” as after a few hundred k years of the crust subducting through the magma the C-14 is all gone
Richard says: April 9, 2014 at 2:53 pm
“The fact is though we do not know enough about the Sun’s radiation to dismiss it so glibly as a force on our climate, we do know enough about the Sun’s radiation to accept it as a force on our climate.”
I really have to wonder what force other that the Sun could supply enough energy to the Earth to drive our climate. I can go outside and feel the effects of the sun on a daily basis. I can’t say the same about CO2, or any of the other trace gases in our atmosphere. That isn’t to say that they might not also be factors in climate, but to dismiss the main source of energy into our climate as a factor in climatic variation seems beyond foolhardy.
svalgaard says: April 9, 2014 at 9:06 pm
“this shows your bias. No amount of data can rock your conviction.”
This was in response to “The reason why I asked if you had extended the proxy back to the Maunder minimum and found the suns radiation to be the same was it would test your hypothesis for me. If you do find it to be the same it would be even more suspect to me than it is now.”
I have no problem with data. Its when data is manipulated to fit into someone else’s bias is when I have a problem.
If you recollect, I reported that according to NASA’s earthobservatory the 11-year running average of sunspot numbers, which shows only the long-term variation, shows a rise in total sunspot numbers from 1700 until today. You stepped in and claimed that a recent assessment of solar activity .. shows there has been no trend over the past 260 years, and referred me to a draft paper you have prepared.
In this draft paper you have taken the raw Zürich Sunspot Numbers, which clearly shows a rising trend, and said the earlier observations (by Wolf?) were 65% less than the later ones (by Wolfer?), so we homogenise (harmonise) Wolf’s observations by increasing them by 65% and voila there is no trend.
Now I readily admit that I am not as clever as you but any hypothesis needs to be tested in addition to being very clever. We know that for the period from 1650 to 1715 AD astronomers observed no sunspots on the Sun’s surface. This lack of solar activity, also coincided with the Little Ice Age in Europe. So if your analysis shows that the Maunder minimum also had the Sun’s radiation as constant, your hypothesis would be highly suspect in my opinion.
Now you have said that, in your opinion, “The Maunder Minimum was not a serious deficit of magnetic flux, but A lessening of the efficiency of the process that compacts magnetic fields into visible spots” and also that “.. the best estimate of magnetic activity, and presumably TSI, (me: and cosmic rays) for the least‐active Maunder Minimum phases appears to be provided by direct measurement in 2008–2009″. I presume then you are leaning towards no appreciable difference in the TSI during the Maunder Minimum. You have even said “..there is [maybe] new solar physics to be learned, let us not shy away from that!” I presume that is not any indication of bias.
lsvalgaard says: April 9, 2014 at 9:34 pm
Convince me with evidence. What I have seen is too flimsy for me, but evidently you have a lower bar for gullibility. I guess it takes all kinds….
Evidence is often subtle, such as a small change in solar radiation, or maybe an apple falling on one’s head. Scoffers seldom are the authors of great discoveries.
PS – I took NASA’s data from their site for Sun Spot numbers. These are from 1749 onwards. Unfortunately Excel doesnt allow me to handle dates before 1900, but the SSN graph from 1900 onwards till March 2014 shows a clear upward trend. As I said I have no problem with the data.
Richard says:
April 10, 2014 at 4:44 pm
PS – I took NASA’s data from their site for Sun Spot numbers. These are from 1749 onwards. Unfortunately Excel doesnt allow me to handle dates before 1900, but the SSN graph from 1900 onwards till March 2014 shows a clear upward trend. As I said I have no problem with the data.
————————————————-
The upward trend started exhibiting lowering dipolar strength in the 1990’s, culminating in a very low dipolar magnetic field for solar cycle 24. Even looks squashed in the graphs, just like the heliospheric bubble, looks squashed..
Presumably an even lower dipolar field for solar cycle 25.
strange thought like ratio of sunspots to dipolar strength?
ren, I think Earth needs more energetic particles from CME’s to help lift that heavy cold air up to higher altitudes, seems low. Just like more CME’s clear out the heliosphere bubble and inflate it. Lots to be said about inflation by energetic particles..
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=temp/equirectangular=-75.00,0.00,308
Carla says: April 10, 2014 at 5:36 pm
“The upward trend started exhibiting lowering dipolar strength in the 1990′s, culminating in a very low dipolar magnetic field for solar cycle 24. Even looks squashed in the graphs, just like the heliospheric bubble, looks squashed.. Presumably an even lower dipolar field for solar cycle 25.
strange thought like ratio of sunspots to dipolar strength?”
I further split the graphs into 2.
Jan 1900 to Dec 1987 – strong upward trend
Jan 1988 to March 2014 – strong downward trend
If this trend continues and if lower Sunspot numbers eventually mean lower temperatures and the effect could be slow and delayed, then we are in for cooler times ahead.
Richard says:
April 10, 2014 at 4:44 pm
I have no problem with data. Its when data is manipulated to fit into someone else’s bias is when I have a problem.
You have a problem when the data does not fit your
In this draft paper you have taken the raw Zürich Sunspot Numbers, which clearly shows a rising trend, and said the earlier observations (by Wolf?) were 65% less than the later ones (by Wolfer?), so we homogenise (harmonise) Wolf’s observations by increasing them by 65% and voila there is no trend.
This is very simple and non-controversial. For many years we have observations both by Wolfer using a big telescope and by Wolf using a much smaller telescope. We simply compare what they observe and discover [as anybody, even you, could] that Wolfer counts 65% more spots on average than Wolf, as he should using a bigger telescope. No magic, no cleverness, no ‘manipulation’. On slide 5 of http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction%20of%20Sunspot%20Number.pdf you can see the two telescopes they used. They still exist and when we look through them we can very that with the big telescope we count as many more spots as Wolfer did compared to Wolf with the small telescope. Now go down to slide 41 and see how Wolfer and Wolf compare. On slide 42 I show the comparison for days in August 1883; again you can see for yourself what the numbers are. To put it differently, the two observers observe on a different scale. Just like two maps with different scale showing different amount of detail, so if two observers were counting, say, number of streets visible will also be on a different scale and to compare their data we must harmonize [convert] the observers data to each other. Now, don’t you feel a wee bit stupid pretending that you don’t understand this? I would.
“also that “.. the best estimate of magnetic activity, and presumably TSI, (me: and cosmic rays) for the least‐active Maunder Minimum phases appears to be provided by direct measurement in 2008–2009″.
That is not my opinion, but the finding of some of the best solar physicists in the world. Check the authors of the paper: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf Better, yet, read their paper.
lsvalgaard says:
April 10, 2014 at 7:08 pm
To put it differently, the two observers observe on a different scale. Just like two maps with different scale showing different amount of detail, so if two observers were counting, say, number of streets visible will also be on a different scale and to compare their data we must harmonize [convert] the observers data to each other. Now, don’t you feel a wee bit stupid pretending that you don’t understand this? I would.
To, perhaps, make this clear to you, compare these two maps to different scales and ponder how you see more detail on the map with the larger scale [telescope]: http://www.leif.org/research/map-scales.png
lsvalgaard says:
April 10, 2014 at 7:30 am
Use ‘rotational’ instead of ‘geographical’. Or even better: ‘heliographical’
I wrote a program for studying heliographic images like http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/test51.jpg
You can have a copy of the program, but you’ll have to manually crop the latest images until I write a safe way of cropping and converting images like http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/beacon/beacon_secchi.shtml (I’ve completed a format conversion function, the size and cropping is straightforward, but there are other options I’m considering)
this is what it looks like in the program: http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/001015.jpg
Have a look!
I’ve also added excellent functionality for viewing daily on line images and data!
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/001014.jpeg
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/001013.jpeg
Any constructive suggestions would be welcome!
Also criticism is always welcome!
Leif,
The program is a casual educational project and it’s based on my own preferences and developed in my own spare time, so be kind. 😉
parks says:
April 10, 2014 at 8:22 pm
The program is a casual educational project and it’s based on my own preferences
Jedem das Seine (or suum cuique if you prefer)
Just a bit OT but we have a Cyclone 5 Ita bearing down on Northern Queensland, with high seas winds and rain. Now is this a cause of El Nino or La Nina? Really everyone, the weather is the weather, and I fear for Cairns, as on high tides, the sea water runs down the gutters on the ocean front. But we have a very good warning system and people are evacuating already. Better to be sure than sorry, eh?
bushbunny,
These storms are dangerous, stay safe 🙂
Leif,
When you said “Each to their own” etc.. I noticed my previous comment may have still been in moderation, Sorry!
lsvalgaard says: April 10, 2014 at 7:08 pm
Questions:
1. Between Wolf and Wolfer, the difference is far more during the peak cycle time than it is during the quiet cycle time. Why is this so?
2. You have said that the A and B groups (which are small?) were probably left out by Wolf either deliberately if he was using the larger telescope or he couldn’t see them if using the smaller one. You have also said that the A and B groups make up almost half of all groups. What then is the weighted influence of the A and B groups on the Sunspot number? Since the Sunspot number is used as a proxy for the TSI or the Sun’s radiance, shouldn’t the larger spots have a greater influence than the smaller ones?
3. Even if we increase the previous numbers to homogenise with the modern ones we still find an upward trend from 1900 onwards.
And possibly earlier also
Richard says:
April 10, 2014 at 9:43 pm
1. Between Wolf and Wolfer, the difference is far more during the peak cycle time than it is during the quiet cycle time. Why is this so?
The ratio, not the difference, is what is important and that ratio is constant because the regression data points lie on a straight line through the origin.
2. You have said that the A and B groups (which are small?) were probably left out by Wolf either deliberately if he was using the larger telescope or he couldn’t see them if using the smaller one. You have also said that the A and B groups make up almost half of all groups. What then is the weighted influence of the A and B groups on the Sunspot number? Since the Sunspot number is used as a proxy for the TSI or the Sun’s radiance, shouldn’t the larger spots have a greater influence than the smaller ones?
The weight factor was introduced by Waldmeier in 1947, so does not influence the ratio between Wolf [died in 1893] and Wolfer. And the larger spots have a larger influence [making the sun darker] which is more than offset by the surrounding magnetic field [making the sun brighter]. Furthermore, the factor we find is what the data tells us. We can’t do anything about that, whether we like it or not.
3. Even if we increase the previous numbers to homogenise with the modern ones we still find an upward trend from 1900 onwards.
And from 1800 on and from 1700 on. What is important is that in each century [Figure xx12] there is the same evolution of the sunspot number: small, then large, then down to small again with no significant difference between the centuries.
Richard says:
April 10, 2014 at 9:48 pm
And possibly earlier also
Not really: http://www.leif.org/research/New-Sunspot-Series-21yr-Run-Avg.png
lsvalgaard says:
April 10, 2014 at 10:00 pm
And from 1800 on and from 1700 on
In response to “Even if we increase the previous numbers to homogenise with the modern ones we still find an upward trend from 1900 onwards.”
So then when some people say that part of the cause for the slow, but uneven, warming of the Earth since the Little Ice Age, including our current warming, may have been the slow but uneven increase in activity of the Sun, they may possibly be correct? And perhaps you should not be so dismissive of such an idea.
Also bearing in mind that the Sunspot numbers do not extend till the Maunder Minimum, the statement that the numbers have increased from then till today would possibly still hold good.
What is important is that in each century [Figure xx12] there is the same evolution of the sunspot number: small, then large, then down to small again with no significant difference between the centuries
When I look at your graph xx12, I do not see “the same evolution of the sunspot number”. In fact what you see as nothing significant, I see a quite significant variation of the Sun’s activity between quiet and dormant periods, and still, visually from your graph, a rise in total sunspot numbers from, at least, 1800 until today.
lsvalgaard says:
April 10, 2014 at 10:00 pm
And from 1800 on and from 1700 on
In response to “Even if we increase the previous numbers to homogenise with the modern ones we still find an upward trend from 1900 onwards.”
So then when some people say that part of the cause for the slow, but uneven, warming of the Earth since the Little Ice Age, including our current warming, may have been the slow but uneven increase in activity of the Sun, they may possibly be correct? And perhaps you should not be so dismissive of such an idea.
Also bearing in mind that the Sunspot numbers do not extend till the Maunder Minimum, the statement that the numbers have increased from then till today would possibly still hold good.
What is important is that in each century [Figure xx12] there is the same evolution of the sunspot number: small, then large, then down to small again with no significant difference between the centuries
When I look at your graph xx12, I do not see “the same evolution of the sunspot number”. In fact what you see as nothing significant, I see a quite significant variation of the Sun’s activity between quiet and dormant periods and still, visually from your graph, a rise in total sunspot numbers from, at least, 1800 until today.
What happened to my comment?
Mod ??
I’ll try once more.
lsvalgaard says:
April 10, 2014 at 10:00 pm
And from 1800 on and from 1700 on
In response to “Even if we increase the previous numbers to homogenise with the modern ones we still find an upward trend from 1900 onwards.”
So then when some people say that part of the cause for the slow, but uneven, warming of the Earth since the Little Ice Age, including our current warming, may have been the slow but uneven increase in activity of the Sun, they may possibly be correct? And perhaps you should not be so dismissive of such an idea.
Also bearing in mind that the Sunspot numbers do not extend till the Maunder Minimum, the statement that the numbers have increased from then till today would possibly still hold good.
What is important is that in each century [Figure xx12] there is the same evolution of the sunspot number: small, then large, then down to small again with no significant difference between the centuries
When I look at your graph xx12, I do not see “the same evolution of the sunspot number”. In fact what you see as nothing significant, I see a quite significant variation of the Sun’s activity between quiet and dormant periods, and still, visually from your graph, a rise in total sunspot numbers from, at least, 1800 until today.
@richard
Do try to refresh your screen to see all three of your comments
Sorry about that
Richard says:
April 10, 2014 at 10:44 pm
So then when some people say that part of the cause for the slow, but uneven, warming of the Earth since the Little Ice Age, including our current warming, may have been the slow but uneven increase in activity of the Sun, they may possibly be correct? And perhaps you should not be so dismissive of such an idea.
‘Part of the warming’ I can live with, like 10% or so. The point is whether the Sun is the Major driver or not. It is clear to me that its is not, in which case it is silly to be upset about anything.
Also bearing in mind that the Sunspot numbers do not extend till the Maunder Minimum, the statement that the numbers have increased from then till today would possibly still hold good.
The cosmic rays show that solar cycle modulation during the Maunder Minimum was as strong as today so the sunspot cycle was still operating. That we could not see the spots is something that need to be investigated.
Richard says:
April 10, 2014 at 10:44 pm
I see a quite significant variation of the Sun’s activity between quiet and dormant periods, and still, visually from your graph, a rise in total sunspot numbers from, at least, 1800 until today.
Not really: http://www.leif.org/research/New-Sunspot-Series-21yr-Run-Avg.png
Leif, have you a solar cycle 23 and 22 “phase shift” comparison in x-ray and Ultraviolet?
Sparks says:
April 11, 2014 at 11:13 pm
Leif, have you a solar cycle 23 and 22 “phase shift” comparison in x-ray and Ultraviolet?
No, but in 17 GHz microwaves http://www.leif.org/research/Nobeyama-17GHz-Synoptic-Limb-Chart.png
lsvalgaard says:
April 12, 2014 at 3:26 am
“No, but in 17 GHz microwaves http://www.leif.org/research/Nobeyama-17GHz-Synoptic-Limb-Chart.png“
One 22 year magnetic cycle in the opposite side of the spectrum? Leif, you’re holding back. Interesting that it’s a 22 year magnetic cycle.. fantastic!
Sparks says:
April 13, 2014 at 8:41 pm
Interesting that it’s a 22 year magnetic cycle.. fantastic!
There is no 22-yr magnetic cycle, just two 11-yr cycles with opposite polarity.
The Earth also changes polarity every million year or so [with huge random variability], yet we don’t talk about a 2-million year Earth magnetic cycle.
The magnetic pole changes all the time, according to pilots. There are Greens who fear the next shift. I knew someone a Green who told me we know there will be another ice age more than global warming, but we are concentrating on ethics and economics. Like the IPCC? Politics rather than science.
lsvalgaard says:
April 13, 2014 at 8:46 pm
“There is no 22-yr magnetic cycle, just two 11-yr cycles with opposite polarity.”
It takes the positive magnetic polarity of the sun 11 years to reverse, it then takes another eleven years for it to reverse again, which brings it back to it’s original starting point of magnetic reversal.. and if my calculations are correct… 11+11 := 22.
Sparks says:
April 13, 2014 at 9:09 pm
It takes the positive magnetic polarity of the sun 11 years to reverse, it then takes another eleven years for it to reverse again
That does not mean there is a 22-yr cycle, but rather just two rather independent 11-yr cycles back-to-back.We should only use the word ‘cycle’ if it is separate physical entity and not about two adjacent such. I know that the real thing is often dumbed down to a ’22-yr’ cycle, but we are about that low level, aren’t we?
Are we not arguing against each other?
lsvalgaard says:
April 13, 2014 at 9:14 pm
That does not mean there is a 22-yr cycle, but rather just two rather independent 11-yr cycles back-to-back.We should only use the word ‘cycle’ if it is separate physical entity and not about two adjacent such
One 360 degree rotation of a polarity, means one full cycle. It literally is one full cycle.
Hi, cyclone Ita was restricted to Northern Queensland, I live on the Northern Tablelands NSW, Armidale. Quite a long way from the coast too, well 180 kms, and 3,500 ft absl. Thanks for concern Sparks.
bushbunny says:
April 13, 2014 at 9:21 pm
“Are we not arguing against each other?”
Apologies…
bushbunny says
“The magnetic pole changes all the time, according to pilots.”
The compass readings change for pilots all the time when flying through earths magnetic field from one location to another, the evidence for earths magnetic field reversal is geological, and that it takes place on far longer timescales (kinda like climate change, before the term meant anthropogenic.. something something… ), possibly related to a geological timescale.
Sparks says:
April 13, 2014 at 9:31 pm
One 360 degree rotation of a polarity, means one full cycle. It literally is one full cycle.
Here is a real cycle http://www.leif.org/research/Extended-cycle.png
Leif,
Svalgaard 404 strikes again lol 🙂
Sparks says:
April 13, 2014 at 10:44 pm
Svalgaard 404 strikes again
Just checking if you even click on my links. Try again.
lsvalgaard says:
April 13, 2014 at 10:50 pm
Just checking if you even click on my links. Try again.
Ah… That one.. 360 degrees can not be extended, even if you give both polarities 180 degrees each per cycle, it will still be a cycle of 360 degrees.
BTW The bicycle works.. engineers build it!
Sparks says:
April 13, 2014 at 11:21 pm
it will still be a cycle of 360 degrees.
In your mind, perhaps, but it will not be a real physical solar 22-yr cycle
Sparks, I believe you. Thanks for explaining this.
lsvalgaard says:
April 13, 2014 at 11:23 pm
“In your mind, perhaps, but it will not be a real physical solar 22-yr cycle”
Magnetic polarities are physically observed only by their interaction, otherwise they are completely unobservable. Remember that.