“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/
sturgishooper says:
August 19, 2014 at 7:46 am
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.
Just because the warmists have been doing political science why paint Leif with that same brush. I know he can more than defend himself but I see him as a very thoughtful scientist in every sense of the word. Accuracy and history with clarity of thought.
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.
Yes it was. That is why other centuries unlike last century had prolonged solar minimum periods that were named.
TerryBixler says:
August 19, 2014 at 8:45 am
Unlike Mann, et al, the sunspot number revisionists are not intentionally engaging in chicanery. The question is, why have NASA and other government funds now become available for this project? If it is a worthy effort in the early 21st century, why was it not supported in the late 20th?
The fact is solar activity has gone from active last century to inactive 2005- presently and counting going forward. Let us see how it plays out.
William Astley says:
August 19, 2014 at 7:36 am
What’s happening to the solar polar field? Bye, bye.
Exactly the solar polar fields have not been exhibiting the same behavior during solar cycle 24 as they have in the past . A marked difference.
http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html
Here is the data which shows the solar polar fields are not acting now as they were in the past.
Previously on WUWT there was a picture and we could count it manually like they used to then compare it to what was done by computer. I was at about half of the number.
Question: If the satellites are accurate and we can automate the number, size, intensity and all the other factors why lower the modern records? Why not raise the past numbers?
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).
FROM RICHARD VERNEY
My commentary again is that is what the data shows.
TRM says:
August 19, 2014 at 8:56 am
The satellites aren’t the problem. They show less warming than the “adjusted” surface “record”. But satellite observations began only in 1979. That left Hansen & Jones free to wreak havoc with pre-1979 data.
sturgishooper says:
August 19, 2014 at 8:37 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.
The paper points out that:
“Although the solar physics community now clearly identified those important motivations
(development of “Space Climate” as a new discipline), the awareness at the level of science funding
organizations is still lagging behind. This is why the first initiative aiming at a revision of the SN took the form of Sunspot Number Workshops, an informal and unfunded coordinated effort
gathering a community of experts in the field. Let this be our plea for increased support to these
fundamental long-term observations and studies of solar and Sun-Earth processes.
One has to be aware of the problems before seeking funding. And that awareness is recent [what is wrong with that?].
How long have you wanted to revise the counting system?
I have an overarching principle: ‘Everything must fit’. If something does fit there is an opportunity to learn something. The famous astronomer Le Verrier [co-discoverer of Neptune] once said: “Tout ecart decele une cause inconnue, et peut devenir la source d’une decouverte”. The first inkling [to me, at least] that something didn’t fit was in 2006: http://www.leif.org/research/Physics-based%20Long-term%20Geomagnetic%20Indices.pdf slide 25. In 2007 the picture was becoming clearer http://www.leif.org/research/CAWSES%20-%20Sunspots.pdf and http://www.bu.edu/cawses/documents/cawses-news-v4-n2.pdf
The SSN workshops grew out of a talk I gave in Brussels in 2011 http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-Seminar-12Jan.pdf
And why are so many of your colleagues not on board with all or parts of the revamping?
But they are [that is the whole point]. But, as always, there are a few hold-outs [there are still people denying Evolution, Continental ‘drift’, Big Bang, Solar Nuclear Fusion, Moon Landings, etc]. It will take time for them to come around, but they eventually will [that is called ‘progress’].
Leif
When I go through the old records back to 1000AD at places like the Met office Archives, it is noticeable that periodically there are notes of such as the aurora borealis being seen from as far south as London and also other celestial fireworks. Is there any point in my recording these as possible indicators of low or high solar activity as they can eventually be traced back to approx temperatures for CET?
tonyb
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 19, 2014 at 9:05 am
Thanks very much for that history of the project.
But IMO comparing holdouts to your revisions with opposition to the reality of “Evolution, Continental ‘drift’, Big Bang, Solar Nuclear Fusion, Moon Landings, etc” is a bit much. Where in biology, geology, astrophysics and physics are scientists holding those opinions with stature comparable to the holdouts from your program?
climatereason says:
August 19, 2014 at 9:19 am
When I go through the old records back to 1000AD at places like the Met office Archives, it is noticeable that periodically there are notes of such as the aurora borealis being seen from as far south as London and also other celestial fireworks. Is there any point in my recording these as possible indicators of low or high solar activity
Aurorae at low latitudes are very good records of high solar activity. The earliest record we have goes back to 567 BC. the problem is that no systematic observations of aurorae are made anymore, so we have no MODERN record with which to calibrate the old records.
sturgishooper says:
August 19, 2014 at 9:25 am
Where in biology, geology, astrophysics and physics are scientists holding those opinions with stature comparable to the holdouts from your program?
You have to look at how long it took to eliminate holdouts among scientists [the grim reaper does a good job at that] after each of those breakthroughs, and then add how much longer still it took to eliminate holdouts from the general population [the grim reaper still has a job to do there] including some of the usual suspects right here on WUWT – “without wishing someone to the devil, one might be allowed to hope for best” Piet Hein [Danish poet]].
As regards ‘stature’, that is partly determined by one’s willingness to admit defeat in view of new data or new interpretations [a good example is David Hathaway and his wrong prediction of solar activity – his reputation and stature have not diminished by his admission of being wrong, rather the opposite].
What is the ‘stature’ of modern CAWG scientists? Are those people ‘holdouts’ with high stature?
Stephen Wilde says:
August 19, 2014 at 2:03 am
As pointed out at The Hockey Schtick:
Excerpts from pages 71-72:
“Still, although the levels of activity were not exceptional except maybe for cycle 19, the particularly long sequence of strong cycles in the late 20th remains a noteworthy episode. Indeed, the 400-year sunspot record and one of its by products, the number of spotless days, show that such a tight sequence of 5 strong cycles over 6 successive cycles (from 17 to 22, except 20), which we can call the “Modern Maximum”, is still unique over at least the last four centuries.
So it is frequency modulation instead of amplitude modulation that creates the maximum.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 19, 2014 at 9:38 am
IMO, the holdouts from the climate consensus do indeed enjoy higher professional stature than the likes of pygmies like Mann. For one thing, distinguished emeritus giants are under less pressure to conform.
You’re right that it took a generation & the deaths of some geologists for continental drift to be accepted, but what clinched the deal was the discovery of sea floor spreading and plate tectonics. Among scientists, except in France, evolution was generally rapidly embraced. It all depends upon the evidence. But part of my point was that your revision in the SSN counting method isn’t as important to the history of science as evolution, plate tectonics or the Big Bang, no disrespect intended.
Ian W says:
August 19, 2014 at 9:46 am
show that such a tight sequence of 5 strong cycles over 6 successive cycles (from 17 to 22, except 20)
cycle 20 destroys that pattern, so we are left with clusters of cycles with 2-3 cycles in them, of which there are plenty.
sturgishooper says:
August 19, 2014 at 9:56 am
But part of my point was that your revision in the SSN counting method isn’t as important to the history of science as evolution, plate tectonics or the Big Bang, no disrespect intended.
Nobody said it was [except perhaps Al Gore and friends of ‘save the planet’ persuasion]. My point is that it takes time to turn the ship of science around, as most scientists are VERY conservative when it comes to the fundamentals. This is the way it should be.
” milodonharlani says:August 19, 2014 at 9:03 am
The satellites aren’t the problem. They show less warming than the “adjusted” surface “record”. But satellite observations began only in 1979. That left Hansen & Jones free to wreak havoc with pre-1979 data.”
I meant the solar satellites, not the temperature ones. If the modern equipment can give us much more accurate data on sunspots why not adjust previous sunspot numbers up rather than lowering the current data?
Continuing to use old equipment makes sense to validate & calibrate the new more accurate sunspot numbers from satellites but I’m in the “accuracy is addictive” camp.
Thanks to Lief and everyone else involved in this. It has been very educational.
“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.”
wrong on all counts.
First folks should notice the fundamental similarity between the SSN and the land temperature INDEX
Note early on in the paper where Leif refers to “relative” nature of the count and the fact that its really an INDEX.. The same is true of the global temperature INDEX, although those in the field do not stress this point as clearly as Leif does.
Second, all the algorithms used to adjust the series are available. They have been tested and verified with out of sample data and with synthetic data. Finally the “raw” data or rather the first reports are available. Work continues on making all paper records available were they exist.
“The Royal Observatory of Belgium plans to release this and other revisions incrementally over time.”
—
Why incrementally? Why not make the corrections all at once, in a transparent way, for all to see? Doing things incrementally sounds more like politics than science. It allows you to heat the pot slowly so the frog doesn’t jump out. It also allows you to make revisions beyond what was originally planned if the politics of the moment demand it.
My last comment has been “awaiting moderation” for some time now. I can’t figure out why. Is the word “politics” considered a four-letter word now?
The point is that the sun has shown variability over the past 250 years from the Dalton Minimum , to the 1890-1910 quiet period to what we have now with very active periods apart from these periods.
The sun is showing variability and the variability only becomes less when a large number of years is taken which is meaningless.
It is like a person weighing 150 lbs for 30 years but having a fluctuation from between 130 and 190 lbs during those years. Yes the average is 150 lbs but it was not a steady 150 lbs , only the variability made it appear to have no change.
Exactly the same condition with the sun.
In addition as the article so correctly points out that this is the most inactive solar condition going back some 200 years.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 19, 2014 at 10:05 am
Except among the “climate science” Team, where fundamentals are not only ignored, but are subject to disparagement, as Steve Mosher and Nick Stokes attempt here.
The sunspot count for last century is NOT important. What is important is the fact that the sun for the most part was quite active in comparison to the Dalton Minimum and the present day minimum condition we now have and that the temperature trend over an extended period of time has ALWAYS responded to this solar variability. This is evidenced by looking at the global temperature trend for each of the last 4 or 5 (just to pick a number)prolonged solar minimum periods and seeing in each case the global temperature trend was down while during periods of an active sun the global temperature trend was up. As was the case last century and during the Medieval Warm Period.
I challenge someone to show data contrary to this.
My non-expert, outsider take on this (in 3 parts):
1. After tens of billions of public (tax) dollars spent over the last several decades of GC models to run on expensive supercomputers, and many $billions more tossed at the IPCC and the NCA projects, the GCM predictions are failing. Further, significant signs are appearing on the near time horizon (5-10 years) which point to an increasing likelihood of a cooling period coming near term, even if the 100 year GCM-predicted temp trend is correct. Not only is there a moderate discrepancy NOW in modeled global warming, it seems almost certain to become untenably large in the coming decade with the coming solar minimum in 2020-21. We’ve all seen the finger-pointing increase dramatically in the last year as the Pause continues, sea ice grows, and cold winters are experienced. This thread on the historical SSN record adjustments is a clear example, with thinly veiled suggestions of “CYA” data fiddling and blame games rampant in the comments. The same thing happens with every temp data set update. Accept that it is likely to get much much worse.
2. The accountability for those GCM failures will result in destroyed reputations (scientific and political), and will result in loss of remaining public support (loss of funding) for what was obviously not settled science on Climate Change. (note: I use the UNFCCC definition of Climate Change. The UNFCCC interpretation of Climate Change is what is driving the attempts to de-carbonize our society at great expense and quite real likelihood of exacerbating poverty in the 3rd world.) It is ludicrous to expect public support for Climate Change remedies to address a theoretical global warming in a hundred years, when it is getting much colder in the present AND the energy costs of decarbonization remedies are creating very real pocketbook misery in voters.
3. (this is the controversial part). IMO, Senior managing career scientists and political scientist appointees at NSF, NASA HQ, NOAA, DOE, and many others who are reputationally bound to the Climate Change paradigm, understand points 1. and 2. above. They must find a justification, or alibi, for why the GCMs failed after the many billions of tax money spent. They need to provide a “we didn’t know what we didn’t know” alibi. All the GCMs and prognostications very early on accepted the assumptions that the solar cycle TSI changes and any “grand minima/maxima” effects were largely inconsequential to the GCM outputs. Although there may indeed be no 20th century Grand Maximum (flattening out the handle of solar hockey stick by some accusations) that fooled the modelers, there is indeed support for Grand Minimums in the historical SSN records. If the coming cooldown can be shown as a “we didn’t anticipate an early 21st century Grand Minimum”, then Climate Scientists and the political left who pushed the Climate Change agenda have their alibi.