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 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.