“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/
◾Cycle 24 will become the weakest in 200 years
The article however does point out this fact correctly.
rgbatduke says:
August 19, 2014 at 7:37 am
Nice try, but why didn’t the solar science community rewrite the sunspot record thirty years ago, if it was so in need of fixing? Why now, when so much gravy is available on the GW train? This stinks to high heaven. It’s just more corruption of science, complete with coercion to enforce obedience.
What has taken place in year 2005 is a complete change from active to inactive solar activity.
This change in my opinion will be more then enough to have another climatic impact just as is the case when one reviews historical climatic data.
My challenge remains- Which is to show me the data which shows a prolonged solar minimum period being associated with a rising temperature trend or a prolonged maximum solar period being associated with a falling temperature trend.
I find no such data and the same result is going to happen as this decade proceeds.
Already solar activity is falling off and we are no where near the bottom of the solar cycle 24-solar cycle 25 minimum.
I think the data (especially post 2005/prior to 2005 ) supports the view that the sun can be quite variable and this variability can happen over a short period of time as is the case in the first decade of this current century.
Expect climate implications if this prolonged solar minimum keeps advancing going forward.
The problem with so many postings is there is a lack of understanding of noise in the climate system, thresholds in the climate system ,lag times in the climate system and that the climate system is non linear and never in the same state.
Therefore my point (which I have made many time previously) is DO NOT EXPECT an x change in the climate from given x changes in items that control the climate. This I have preached but with little fanfare.
Why- look read below.
The initial state of the global climate.
a. how close or far away is the global climate to glacial conditions if in inter- glacial, or how close is the earth to inter- glacial conditions if in a glacial condition.
b. climate was closer to the threshold level between glacial and inter- glacial 20,000 -10,000 years ago. This is why the climate was more unstable then. Example solar variability and all items would be able to pull the climate EASIER from one regime to another when the state of the climate was closer to the inter glacial/glacial dividing line, or threshold.
The upshot being GIVEN solar variability IS NOT going to have the same given climatic impact.
Solar variability and the associated primary and secondary effects. Lag times, degree of magnitude change and duration of those changes must be taken into account.
Upshot being a given grand solar minimum period is not always going to have the same climatic impact.
This is why solar/climate correlations are hard to come by UNLESS the state of solar activity goes from a very active state to a very prolonged quiet state which is what has happened during year 2005.
So the nonsense that post Dalton no definitive solar /climate correlations exist just supports my notions of what I just expressed.
Meanwhile, a quiet sun is correlated with a stronger more meridional jet stream pattern which should cause a greater persistence in Wx. patterns which I think is evident post 2005 for the most part.
From Bob Weber. Correct the data does not lie. And now we are in a severe prolonged solar minimum.
And the results, from 1808-1908: 4,735 sunspots; and from 1908-2008: 6,197 sunspots – a 31% increase in solar activity in the last 100 years .
LOOKS ACTIVE TO ME.
In addition to my above comments, the heat energy available from the broader spectrum of solar radiation supplies the lion’s share of oceanic heating. This overall broader spectrum varies only a tiny bit with solar variability, not enough to make a measurable temperature difference under clear sky, clear ocean conditions (tiny W/m2 difference, very large ocean). While it is true the much smaller fraction of radiance contained in the UV portion varies more, there is less energy available from it due to it not being a significant portion of the total radiation spectrum in the first place. Therefore, Earth’s own varying parameters overwhelms solar produced UV variation, burying it in Earth’s intrinsic factors. In fact, accurate UV measurements are still beyond our reach. It is good enough for a 3% change in ozone over time, but not for a 1% change. Even more important in this discussion is how much change in ocean heat would there be. We are talking a small amount of energy available even at full force to an extremely large volume of water. Would changes in this small amount of energy be detectable in an extremely large volume of water? And then one would have to consider other factors unrelated to UV penetration that could also change the temperature of that volume of water.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999JD900180/abstract
There has always been a problem with the sunspot formula, and it only got worse when observation techniques got better. With just five visible spots on the Sun the sunspot number can be 75.
Also, many of the sunspots counted for populating the formula would likely not have been seen with technology from 100 years ago, let alone 400 years ago. The result is a “count” that is heavier in modern times than it would have been in earlier times.
The modern count should be recalibrated such that images used for the count should have the same resolution as images available when the count was first proposed. A tiny little speck visible only with a powerful telescope and modern filtering should not cause a sunspot count of 15. It should be zero.
It would also be more scientific to call the sunspot number an “index” rather than a “count.” Counting implies a non-dimensional quantity. Sunspots are actually a distributed quantity, as the covered area of the Sun’s surface is more important than the number of spots distinguished.
This article also supports my claim that with the exception of the Dalton Solar Minimum solar activity was active with a steady more or less 11 year sunspot cycle increasing in intensity from 1830-2005 which all of the data still shows to be the case.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 19, 2014 at 2:11 am
Thank you for clarifying where the problems are, interesting that not publishing and losing raw data goes back a long way,
Not sure that it is always the case that an observation about a cause and effect always has a scientific explanation before they are accepted as being correct, Continental Drift/Plate Tectonics for instance, Lake Agassiz has a bit of a long history too. Conversely something which has been accepted for many years as the scientific truth starts to be questioned, as I understand it the nothing before the Big Bang concept of the universe is being questioned, not without controversy too. So polarised views are normally counter-productive, but that’s just the view of an interested and open(ish) minded watcher.
Pamela Gray says:
August 19, 2014 at 7:16 am
UV penetration in various parts of the ocean has been measured. It doesn’t rely upon dataless algorithms.
One of thousands of studies that show beyond a doubt the LIA was real.
http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/iceagebook/history_of_climate.html
My main interest with Lockwood is his views on the extent of solar variability the Little Ice Age takes care of itself.
That is 100% provable.
Also if one looks at the ap index history one will see a deep dip around 1900-1907 and another one post 2005.
The ap index post 2005 is only half of what it was for most of the last century even if the lull from 1900-1907 is included.
rgbatduke says:
August 19, 2014 at 7:37 am
__
So no accentuated warming as a result of abnormal Maximum Solar activity level.
But flat to cooling suggested, for many years, due to a minimum.
Pamela,
I have explained to you before that it is not the energy content of specific wavelengths from the sun that matters.
What matters is the effect on global cloudiness.
Changing global cloudiness makes a much larger difference to the proportion of solar energy that gets past the atmosphere and into the oceans to fuel the climate system.
The way I’m reading it, this will be proper science, reviewed and analyzed by many and should provide the best, reasonably accurate results.
Contrast this to the “adjustments” being made to the land based temperature record, where algorithms and methodologies are not revealed nor is the unadjusted data, and you see the difference between proper science and, if I may, “political” science.
JohnWho says:
August 19, 2014 at 8:09 am
That’s not how I read it. I see it as more federal grant-funded rewriting of observations in order to tell the desired story.
If problems can be identified in existing data, how about fixing them without changing the whole system? Because more spots are visible now, how about just limiting the number to those which would have been visible in previous centuries? Or use a single number for total area covered as measured by 17th to 19th century observers?
My motto is let the data do the talking and the data supports the claims that the sun exhibits variability and that this variability correlates to the global temperature trend over a range of years.
Going forward solar variability will continue to show itself now that the sun is in a prolonged inactive state in contrast to being in a prolonged active state last century.
Just compare sunspot data from 2005 to the present to similar earlier periods of time. One will see a decline which by the way will intensify going forward and has a very long way to go.
The global temperatures as has always been the case will follow suit once again.
This is for you PAM expect geological activity to pick up as the prolonged solar minimum re- establishes itself. I know you don’t buy it but then again you do not believe in the data.
I will present the data once again.
http://spaceandscience.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/ssrcresearchreport1-2010geophysicalevents.pdf
This shows a correlation between solar activity and geological activity. Based on the data.
That is what the data confirms like it not.
philjourdan says:
August 19, 2014 at 4:19 am
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.
None of your good intentions matter when it comes to what people did in the past. It matters not what people should do, but only what they actually did.
the disappearance of original data is inexcusable
Irrelevant as the original data was thrown away long ago, before there were any computers.
Walt Stone (@Cuppacafe) says:
August 19, 2014 at 6:22 am
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”
I don’t know. The only thing one can do [and must do] is to correct defects as they are discovered.
PMHinSC says:
August 19, 2014 at 6:50 am
I am not at all comfortable with discarding anything that cannot be adequately explained with current knowledge
Nothing is discarded by insisting that the claimants of a correlation demonstrate that the correlation actually holds and that it is energetically possible or at least plausible, and that is where the problem is. Too many people are hand waving or, in a particularly sad case [discussed on WUWT recently] resorting to X-factors.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 19, 2014 at 7:33 am
The solar activity of the last century was very high regardless of what it may be called.
No, not when compared to the other centuries.
William Astley says:
August 19, 2014 at 7:36 am
What’s happening to the solar polar field? Bye, bye.
The polar fields disappear in every solar cycle
David Thomson says:
August 19, 2014 at 7:51 am
Also, many of the sunspots counted for populating the formula would likely not have been seen with technology from 100 years ago, let alone 400 years ago. The result is a “count” that is heavier in modern times than it would have been in earlier times.
One often hear that claim, but it is false. We count today using the same small telescopes [on purpose], and in any case differences between telescopes [and people] are taken into account, by adjusting the count correspondingly.
Sunspots are actually a distributed quantity, as the covered area of the Sun’s surface is more important than the number of spots distinguished.
It matters not what one should, but only what people actually did 200-300 years ago. We have to use the data we have, not that we wished we have.
@Leif
I am not talking “should have done”. I am talking “doing”. What has happened in the past cannot be undone. But going forward, is what upset me. If I misunderstood your tense, I apologize.
I consider it important to preserve the unadjusted data, and it appears from the comments that Leif has made that this is being done. This will aloow future generations to revisit it.
Without reviewing the original data, and knowing the full details about limitations with that data, it appears to me that no one is in a position to comment upon whether the re-interpretation is justified and sound. That does not mean that I take Leif at his word (like anyone, he could be mistaken), but certainly for the time being I would extend the benefit of doubt to what he has to say..
As a matter of commonsense, one would expect that with modern equipment and techniques which lead to significantly increased resolution, we are today detecting sunspots that would not have been detected 100, 200, 300 years ago.
In order to make a like for like comparison with the old data record, perhaps we should rebuild old equipment to what we consider was the standard of that equipment at the time (if known old equipment exists it would be preferable to use that), and use that old equipment to record present day data which we can then compare with the present day data collected from modern present day equipment. This could provide a useful check.
The problem in climate science is the poor quality of the data which extends to all data sets. I can see that there are issues with the sunspot data, and whilst I do not see correlation between sunspot counts and temperature, i can see some broad similarities. Salvatore Del Prete (August 19, 2014 at 7:46 am ) raises a very good point when he says:: “My challenge remains- Which is to show me the data which shows a prolonged solar minimum period being associated with a rising temperature trend or a prolonged maximum solar period being associated with a falling temperature trend.” (the emphasis being on prolonged).
Personally, I consider that TSI may not be the full story. The relationship between the sun and the earth (including the earth’s magnetic field) is no doubt both complex, and subtle. Changes in wavelength could be significant since this can impact upon absorption of incoming solar radiance. I for one question whether a watt is just a watt, no matter where that watt is absorbed within the system. If for example, due to a change in the distribution of wavelength, solar irradiance is being absorbed by the oceans at a different depth (even if this is only 10 or 20cm different), it could impact upon SST, over short periods. Likewise, such changes may have an impact on cloud cover and/or formation and/or atmospheric jet streams/circulation patterns.
Personally, I consider it rather premature to make predictions at this stage, since our understanding seems incomplete, and because it appears that we might, within the course of the next few decades, experience a ‘quiet’ sun and we are now in a better position to closely and scientifically observe what affect that has here on earth (although, of course, no one knows what will happen and the sun may be far from ‘quiet’ – we just need to waiit and see).
I note that the Daily Mail is running a story that perhaps the impact of the sun has been under-appreciated. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2728814/Is-SUN-driving-climate-change-Solar-activity-not-just-humans-increasing-global-warming-study-claims.html
All I can say is that the next decade, or so, could be interesting, but it is important that there are no natural disasters (such as volcanos) to cloud our judgement.
.
I appreciate the removal of illusions and the avoidance of new ones. This seems to do that. If there’s no Grand Maximum but there was heating, so be it. I know even anecdotally that it was cooler in the 1970s. It did warm. Solar activity was apparently not unusual. OK.
And now temp is flat and may cool from here maybe due cosmic rays and cloud formation. Seems viable.
Presumably it warmed though due to … ??? I’ll go with the oceans, and I don’t mean it was only solar wattage input and storage.
Earth bats last.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 19, 2014 at 8:31 am
Your motives and those of your colleagues in this endeavor may well be pure, but please say why funding for this project wasn’t available in previous decades. Surely the problem isn’t new. How long have you wanted to revise the counting system? And why are so many of your colleagues not on board with all or parts of the revamping? Thanks.
richard verney says:
August 19, 2014 at 8:32 am
As a matter of commonsense, one would expect that with modern equipment and techniques which lead to significantly increased resolution, we are today detecting sunspots that would not have been detected 100, 200, 300 years ago.
Today we deliberately use small telescopes. no more powerful that were used 200 years ago.
In order to make a like for like comparison with the old data record, perhaps we should rebuild old equipment to what we consider was the standard of that equipment at the time (if known old equipment exists it would be preferable to use that)
People seem not to bother reading the papers on this. The old instruments still exists and are actually used to this day, see slide 9 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
This data for my money will be revised once again but it does not matter. The point is the sun was active last century and has now become very inactive . This is the point.
This article does nothing to alter that fact.
@ur momisugly william says:
August 19, 2014 at 6:22 am
If you can build a predictive model from the data gathered…would this not suffice for a reasonable hypothesis to the explanation for a ‘trigger’ to warming/cooling periods?
The predictive model could be rather simple but unfortunately takes a long time to validate. Couldn’t be any worse than the predictive models now!
The cause and effect of the Sun-Earth holds more common sense validity than the very reasonable CO2-temperature, IMO.
Getting back to data it supports a more meridional atmospheric circulation at times of prolonged solar minimum conditions and a more zonal atmospheric circulation at times of prolonged solar maximum periods.
That again is what the data shows.
Sunspot counting is very subjective and the AP index and Solar Flux are much more objective.