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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.