“AZleader” writes at “Inform the pundits”.
Austin, August 16, 2014 – A rare spotless day on the sun on July 17-18, 2014 triggered public speculation that an already stunted Cycle 24 was nearly over. Such is not the case. Defying the odds for so late in a sunspot cycle, another solar sunspot maximum was set last month. Another one is coming this month.
In other major news, a long needed revision to the 400-year sunspot record was proposed. It’ll be the first change made to the sunspot record since it was first established by Rudolf Wolf back in 1849. The changes will affect long-term climate and other dependent scientific studies.
One effect of the proposal will be to reduce modern sunspot totals. That will wipe out the so-called “Modern Maximum” and make the current sunspot cycle, Cycle 24, the weakest in 200 years.
Cycle 24 solar sunspot progression
After four straight months of steep declines in monthly sunspot counts, July reversed the trend and increased slightly.
The Royal Observatory of Belgium released July’s average monthly sunspot count on August 1, 2014. Despite the mid-month spotless day, the sunspot number increased and it grew solar maximum again for the sixth straight month.
…
Extended periods of inactivity – like the Spörer, Maunder and Dalton minimums – were all accompanied by cooler earth temperatures. Conditions today mimic Cycles 3, 4 and 5 which marked the beginning of the Dalton Minimum.
Revising the 400-year sunspot record
The 400-year sunspot record is the longest continuously recorded daily measurement made in science. It’s used in many scientific disciplines, including climate science studies. It hasn’t been adjusted since Rudolf Wolf created it over 160 years ago.
Over the centuries errors have crept into the record, degrading its value for long-term studies. New data and discoveries now allow scientists to detect and correct errors. The first serious look back at the long-term record since Wolf in 1849 came without even a press release last month. It’s a modestly titled new paper called “Revising the Sunspot Number” by Frédéric Clette, et al., submitted for publication to the journal Solar and Stellar Astrophysics on July 11, 2014.
Some outcomes of the new paper include:
- The so-called “Modern Maximum” disappears
- Sunspot activity is steady over the last 250 years
- Three detected “inhomogeneities” since 1880 are corrected
- Cycle 24 will become the weakest in 200 years
The new paper describes the current state of understanding of the long term record. It isn’t a complete revision of the entire record, but a first level recalibration going back to 1749. The Royal Observatory of Belgium plans to release this and other revisions incrementally over time.
Solar physicist, Dr. Leif Svalgaard of Stanford University, organized a series of four workshops beginning in 2011 designed to review and revise the long term record. This new paper is the first fruit of that labor. Primarily, it removes “inhomogeneities” and brings the International Sunspot Number and newer Group Count record and solar magnetic history in sync.
Full story here: http://informthepundits.wordpress.com/2014/08/17/sunspots-2014-two-big-surprises/
What do you think about this?: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2225.html
@Leif
Human nature may – but science does not. And good science would maintain the raw data in case new information is found where new numbers must be derived based upon new knowledge.
With the advent of computers and massive data storage, the disappearance of original data is inexcusable. What we know today is less than what we will know in the future. And robbing future scientists of the ability to expand the base of knowledge is the problem with climate science today.
Did any amateur or professional solar scientist(s) accurately predict cycle 24’s behavour including the including the double peak?
Recall this, which seems to deal mostly with consensus of a bell curve:
The Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel has reached a consensus decision on the prediction of the next solar cycle (Cycle 24). First, the panel has agreed that solar minimum occurred in December, 2008. This still qualifies as a prediction since the smoothed sunspot number is only valid through September, 2008. The panel has decided that the next solar cycle will be below average in intensity, with a maximum sunspot number of 90. Given the predicted date of solar minimum and the predicted maximum intensity, solar maximum is now expected to occur in May, 2013. Note, this is a consensus opinion, not a unanimous decision. A supermajority of the panel did agree to this prediction.
By my eyeball measurement, the sunspots of the mid to late 20th century exceed the maximums/maxima in the earlier centuries. There may not be a grand maximum, but there is at least a big maximum.
Anyway, congratulations to Leif and coauthors on the paper.
What Hunter said. Thanks, Dr. Svalgaard, for your regular appearances here, and your relentless focus on accurate data.
Science requires theories and models–but it also requires reliable data. Climate “science” (of all flavors) seems to be way too heavy on the former and skimpy on the latter.
Now I need to go review the presentation and have a look at the paper!
Sunspots are not the only way to measure the level of solar activity and not the most precise one either, as their counts tend to underestimate it. A more precise measure, and a more relevant too, regarding climate change on Earth, is the geomagnetic response to solar activity. There is a brilliant paper by Georgieva, Bianchi and Kirov, published in Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana, vol. 76, p. 969, 2005, that looks at the latter and finds perfect correlation between it and global temperature variations for the whole period between 1856 and 2000.
Only slightly OT.
Jasper Kirkby showed the thousand year correlation between solar activity (using C14 & Be10) and climate (proxies of NH temperature and equatorial Andes glaciers). See page 3 of the link, Leif’s paper does not negate those correlations.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf
***
Stephen Wilde says:
August 19, 2014 at 1:56 am
In conversations with Leif Svalgaard in past threads he appeared to take the view that his ‘flattening’ of the solar activity record supported his belief that the sun was NOT responsible for climate variability. He insisted that climate variability was simply an internal system phenomenon.
***
There’s nothing “simple” about earth’s internal climate variation — just the opposite.
Nonetheless Stephen, solar warming proponents will continue to “twirk” with the data in order to squeeze out their mechanism-less tomes. You know full well that a comparison between the cumulative energy between the two time spans you refer to results in a tiny, tiny fraction change in W/m2 here on Earth (regardless of which piece of the solar spectrum frequency you focus on) that you must then spread through the modern warming period. Knowing that there is not enough energy change to make a measurable difference, you and others resort to some unknown pixie dust to complete your presentation. That’s not even hand waving. That’s a tall tale.
I enter this from a strictly empiricist viewpoint. If a statistically based model is able to give unbiased predictions with a small error, then it is better than no model at all. Truth is what works. So far, solar based statistical top down models are working better than physical bottom up models. But as people wish. The only thing is that the physical world could care less about what we wish.
@Gus: I would suggest you read Leif’s paper–he cross-correlates with geomagnetic activity as a sanity-check on the sunspots. Really good stuff!
Gus
You refer to a paper by Georgieva, Bianchi and Kirov,from 2005, that finds perfect correlation between it (geomagnetic response to solar activity) and global temperature variations for the whole period between 1856 and 2000.
Has every other scientist in the world been unable to find this study or are they incapable of understanding it? What you infer is that temperature variation is explained perfectly and no one else in the world seems to care?
By the way, perfect correlations does not necessarily reveal causation. There may be a perfect correlation between temperature and ice cream cone sales in NYC but one would not infer that eating the ice cream causes temperature change.
thanks
Will
Thanks, Leif. Read the pdf of your work you linked to, but I guess I missed how the new proposed system will affect the “Penn and Livingston effect” (sorry, that’s what I remember it as) What does the before/after SSN chart look like for that? Severity/slope lessened but same uh, curiosity?
Why isn’t variance in UV over the solar cycle (or centuries) able to cause/contribute to climate variability?
UV penetrates the ocean at depth and so variance in UV radiation would have a cumulative effect on solar heating.
Thanks.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 19, 2014 at 2:22 am
“The main problem with this is that you [and others] have not come up with a plausible physical theory [or mechanism] for how this can happen.”
Well I am very familiar with the difference between correlation and causation I am not at all comfortable with discarding anything that cannot be adequately explained with current knowledge. This is a huge problem I have with the proponents of CAGW who will only accept what they can explain even though their explanations are incomplete if not questionable. Just because you offer an explain doesn’t mean that your explanation is correct and just because Stephen can’t offer an explain doesn’t mean that his observation is incorrect. IMHO it is an open question that will not go away because there isn’t (yet?) a “plausible physical theory.” Also IMHO, and despite what others may claim, Climate Science is still an immature field.
Do we trust Leif or everyone else? I go with everyone…
REPLY: if you want trust, try using your name when you post an opinion – Anthony
“a long needed revision to the 400-year sunspot record was proposed”
Somehow this does NOT give me a warm feeling.
As a layman interested in all the things discussed here I also appreciate Leif’s regular contributions that help me sort out some of the hyperbole used here and around the web and I’d be damn fool to discount him or anyone else that spends their days thinking and researching upon a subject.
I don’t want to make the same mistake CO2ers make by staring at just one ball when there are so many other variables in play.
UV penetration is highly susceptible to Earthbound variances thus varies far greater due to these variances than it does due to solar variation. Some use a circular argument that it is UV itself that changes ozone over time, thus changing UV penetration to ocean depth. It is far more complicated.
From the earth observatory website:
“We have no reliable long-term record of actual UV-B exposure from ground-based measurements, but we do have accurate short-term estimates of decreasing ozone, which we know leads to an increase in UV-B exposure at the surface. In Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1998, the World Meteorological Organization states that during 1998 at mid-latitudes in the north, between 35 and 60 degrees N, average ozone abundances were about 4 percent (per satellite measurements) or 5 percent (per ground-based measurements) below values measured in 1979, with most of the change occurring at the high end of that latitude zone. That means that recent UV-B radiation doses are correspondingly higher at those latitudes than historical levels (by amounts that depend on specific wavelengths). In the tropics and mid-latitudes, between 35 degrees S and 35 degrees N, both satellite data and ground-based data indicate that total ozone does not appear to have changed significantly since 1979.”
The reader is wise to note that solar inclination drastically affects UV penetration into water. So changes in ozone at mid to high latitudes would have decreasing affects in the ocean. From the article:
“Oblique angle of sunlight reaching the surface
At any given time, sunlight strikes most of the Earth at an oblique angle. In this way, the number of UV photons is spread over a wider surface area, lowering the amount of incoming radiation at any given spot, compared to its intensity when the sun is directly overhead. In addition, the amount of atmosphere crossed by sunlight is greater at oblique angles than when the sun is directly overhead. Thus, the light travels through more ozone before reaching the Earth’s surface, thereby increasing the amount of UV-B that is absorbed by molecules of ozone and reducing UV-B exposure at the surface.”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/UVB/uvb_radiation3.php
UV penetration into the oceans is based on several algorithms and tables described in the following paper. These calculations are used to map UV penetration in the oceans.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEUQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spg.ucsd.edu%2FPeople%2FMati%2F2003_Ahmad_et_al_UV_radiation_SPIE.pdf&ei=NVbzU-rtHcKligKys4GoAg&usg=AFQjCNFSHAKlMdz9Z7Ike68r2y-PYVGumA&sig2=uqfBqglDodP8VFonXjAqEw&bvm=bv.73231344,d.cGE
“Cause” is a stretch; “contribute” works, but how much, how often, wavelength changes with sunspot activity, lag time, proportion of LW to SW, – all unanswered questions that fall into the Solar mix that need to be quantified and verified.
We have a long way to go!!!
Exactly like Bob Weber has pointed out. The solar activity of the last century was very high regardless of what it may be called. Further contrast that solar activity last century to solar activity post 2005 and one can see a significant change from an active sun to an inactive sun. This is going to have climate implications.
Another point is to try to forecast future solar activity based on when the sun was active last century is absurd. As evidence of this is the severe solar lull that took place from 2008-2010 which took everyone by surprise.
Bob Weber pointed out:
“from 1808-1908: 4,735 sunspots; and from 1908-2008: 6,197 sunspots – a 31% increase in solar activity in the last 100 years compared to the previous 100 year period (not including SC24).”
To my mind that leaves the Modern Maximum intact albeit redefined.
TSI may not vary much but other solar effects do vary more significantly and do seem to change global atmospheric circulation resulting in cloudiness changes that do cause warming and cooling.
Bob, thanks so much for bringing this data out. It proves the point just how active the sun was last century especially when contrasted to the Dalton Minimum and post 2005 solar activity.
Solar variability is alive and well. Further there in ample evidence that it does indeed impact.
Bob Weber pointed out:
“from 1808-1908: 4,735 sunspots; and from 1908-2008: 6,197 sunspots – a 31% increase in solar activity in the last 100 years compared to the previous 100 year period (not including SC24).”
To my mind that leaves the Modern Maximum intact albeit redefined.
It is all fun and games until it is obvious the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted and there is unequivocal global cooling.
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_4096_4500.jpg
What’s happening to the solar polar field? Bye, bye.
http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html
The trend is not your friend. Why is there suddenly, post 2006 record sea ice in the Antarctic and recover of sea ice in the Arctic?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
Manipulating sunspot count will not change the fact there was a grand maximum solar maximum from 1950 to 2006 and the majority of the warming in the last 60 years has caused by cloud modulation and changes to solar UV due to the 1950 to 2006 grand maximum.
P.S. As we are now becoming aware, the magnetic field intensity of the sunspots and the amount of open flux from coronal hole emission is missed by a simple count of sunspots.
Note the cosmogenic isotope record (unaltered) shows evidence of past grand maximums and the current grand maximum.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/06/recent-paper-finds-recent-solar-grand-maximum-was-a-rare-or-even-unique-event-in-3000-years/
Why is there suddenly an increase in galactic cosmic rays (GCR or cosmic flux, silly archaic, in accurate name for mostly high speed cosmic protons that strike the earth and create ions in the atmosphere.)
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=19&startmonth=07&startyear=1967&starttime=00%3A00&endday=19&endmonth=08&endyear=2014&endtime=23%3A30&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
The number of GCR/CRF and the velocity of GCR/CRF are reduced by the solar heliosphere. The size, density, and the amount of magnetic flux in the solar heliosphere all of which change depending on changes to the solar magnetic cycle (the sunspot count is a coarse and inaccurate means to determine the size, density, and composition of the solar heliosphere.)
As I have noted the timing of solar wind bursts in the solar magnetic cycle greatly affects the sun’s modulation of planetary clouds and is almost independent of the sunspot count. In recent solar cycles there have been late cycle solar wind bursts from coronal holes which create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions, thereby making it appear high GCR does not cause there to be an increase in planetary cloud cover.
Or, perhaps, just maybe, you could look at the substantial evidence they have the supports the rewrite, including the documented alteration in the way the count was conducted over centuries of observation by different humans using different tools. It isn’t all about the GW politics, especially not in solar science that doesn’t get funded primarily by the hysteria.
The top article points out that sunspot counts are one of the oldest daily records we have but some of the less but still quite old records we have are geomagnetic records that also reflect sunspot numbers in easily invertible ways. In fact, we have three such long term records to determine two measures of solar activity that empirically match up extremely well with sunspot number in the modern era. The argument in favor of this revision is not, in other words, political at all — it is a well-founded empirically based exercise in reason, science at its best, not its worst. I looked over the evidence, and it convinced me that Lief and the others who have participated in this know exactly what they are doing, subject the arguments and data supporting their conclusions to intense scrutiny helped by the fact that there is a group that would at least like to disagree with their conclusions working in the field who would cheerfully point out any real flaws in the reasoning if there were any, and that, in fact, their conclusions are very probably true and that the corrected record is almost certainly better than the uncorrected record.
Wishful thinking is to be avoided throughout science, but the way to avoid it isn’t to make blanket statements like the one you make, it is to look at the evidence and then, if you have anything specific to say about it, say it. Personally I think the evidence is overwhelming, and expect that there will be very little meaningful opposition to the adoption of the new results. If nothing else, it raises the bar for those who wish to continue to claim that there is anything particularly unusual about the recent 20th century solar maximum, or for that matter about the (probably) coming 21st century minimum. There are maxima and minima in the record still, they just aren’t grand.
This also does not address in any way whether or not the not-so-grand maxima or minima are or are not correlated with and/or causal of climate changes over the sunspot record. Again, it prevents people from asserting an erroneous conclusion that 20th century warming was all due to a grand maximum in solar state, the way it has been asserted that the Little Ice Age was due to a grand minimum. There simply is a lot less “grandeur” in the record of the solar state than has previously been asserted, which (given the extremely short observational record post-enlightenment and the even shorter electromagnetic record) is hardly surprising.
rgb
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/08/new-paper-finds-solar-activity-more.html
This article talks about the accumulative effect of solar activity on the climate last century.