“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 11:11 am
Except among the “climate science” Team, where fundamentals are not only ignored, but are subject to disparagement
Disparagement by so-called skeptics or what. Many of the commenters here on WUWT are so far out on the lunatic fringe that it hurts. But, at any rate, none of this matters as far as correcting known errors in the Sunspot Series. Which, by the way, is completely transparent: anybody can with publicly available data repeat, reproduce, and verify our conclusions.
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. Mere hand waving doesn’t cut it, in my book. There are hundreds of such hand waves in the literature. That alone is a good sign that they are just that. I don’t need to see any more of the same old, tired hand waving.
———————————————-
Leif seems to have forgotten that the existence of the neutrino was proposed as a way of retaining the law of conservation of energy. We have a similar situation with more ocean energy exchange during solar cycles than can be produced by just the small variations of solar irradiance that enter at the top of the atmosphere. I think that variations of cloud cover provide the most likely way to allow greater variability of the solar flux that enters the ocean. This is a testable hypothesis for which efforts to measure the effect are in progress in several different ways.
http://www.solen.info/solar/history/
Look at the inflection points between solar cycles 19/20, 20/21,21/22,22/23 and compare it to the inflection point between solar cycle 23 and 24. Also look at the peaks.
See how much weaker the activity of the sun has become now. In addition if one goes back to the Dalton Minimum much less the Maunder Minimum one will find the same results.
The data proves my point which is the sun only shows less variability when averaged over a long period of time but not over shorter intervals which is what the argument is all about.
Currently another one of these minimum interval periods of solar activity has commenced and the climate consequence will become apparent as it has in the past according to the historical data.
The questions are how long does this minimum period last and to what degree of magnitude does this quiet interval reach. Time will tell but it looks pretty quiet as this article attest to. The article again correctly points out solar activity now the least active in past 200 years.
But I know that part of the new research is wrong(least active solar period in 200 years) only the part about getting rid of the modern solar maximum is correct. If it does not agree it is wrong. Right ?
Maybe in today’s environment they will change the historical temperature data to show an increasing global temperature trend during a prolonged solar minimum period. Why not.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 19, 2014 at 11:16 am
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.
Not so: here is a comparison: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-Temperature-Anomalies-2.png
bones says:
August 19, 2014 at 11:33 am
I think that variations of cloud cover provide the most likely way to allow greater variability of the solar flux that enters the ocean. This is a testable hypothesis for which efforts to measure the effect are in progress in several different ways.
And already, it has failed: http://www.leif.org/research/Cloud-Cover-GCR-Disconnect.png
Disparagement by so-called skeptics or what. Many of the commenters here on WUWT are so far out on the lunatic fringe that it hurts.
My commentary is show me the data that proves us to be wrong. If I see it I may change my mind. As of today I have seen no data that shows any of the arguments put forth by myself and others is wrong.
Talk is fine but you need data to back it up with. Where is it? For example show me the data which shows a period of time of prolonged solar minimum conditions and a global temperature trend rising over that long period of time. Produce it. Show me the data.
Show me data that shows more active volcanic activity during a prolonged solar active period?
Show me data that shows an increase in cosmic rays during a prolonged solar active period?
Show me the data that shows a more zonal atmospheric circulation during a prolonged solar active period?
Show me the data of ocean heat content decreasing during a prolonged solar active period along with sea surface temperatures.
t.
[snip – rant -mod]
Since 2005 the sun has been very quiet the global temperature response has been an end to the global temperature rise and an actual small decline . Let’s watch and see what happens going forward.
Again if quiet solar conditions continue over time and the global temperature trend over time goes up I will admit to being wrong.
Louis says:
August 19, 2014 at 10:29 am
“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?
What was meant is that as new data surfaces they will be incorporated in the ‘current version’. This is how it should be and the sunspot number will from now on carry a version number, e.g. W2015 or perhaps just W15. If we have to wait until all data is in [including what we learn in future], we’ll never be able to release anything.
“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.”
Looks to me like another reason to doubt AGW is being overturned by ‘science.’ I call BS.
How many other factors have been overturned or ‘adjusted’ in their favor? Quite a few. Say goodbye to the co2-temp lag in ice core data in a few years…
“New data and discoveries now allow scientists to detect and correct errors.”
Does it “hide the decline”?
Here is what matters do global temperatures respond down to a prolonged solar quiet period once again?
So we have an unbroken daily record for 400 years of sunspot recorded information, and it was all recorded one day, just 160 years ago.
Really; simply wonderful, isn’t it ?
Sounds like an early preincarnation, of Michael Mann’s Yamal Tree.
george e. smith says:
August 19, 2014 at 12:44 pm
So we have an unbroken daily record for 400 years of sunspot recorded information, and it was all recorded one day, just 160 years ago.
Really; simply wonderful, isn’t it ?
Do you have to spout nonsense? or is it involuntary?
Due to Rayleigh scattering, UV propagates through the atmosphere like water wicking through a paper towel: in all directions without regard to source. It will literally propagate around corners. “Line of sight” geometries do not apply. There are working communication systems that have been built on this attribute of UV (but they tend to be short range or low data rate because of the signal spreading effects of multipath reception).
Dr Svalgaard
thank you for taking the time to comment here. You use very few words and say so much The links to your slides are invaluable. What are some of the reasons your colleagues argue against your proposal?
Max Planck science advances one funeral at a time
Steven Mosher says:
note how many skeptics refuse to discuss the actual science even when all the data and methods are clear. note how they change the subject, seek motives.. note how NONE engage in the scientific method
Steven, that sounds an awfully lot like projection. Here, let me give you a typical example:
http://www.truth-out.org
That is a liberal, heavily censoring, climate alarmist blog. Very popular among the mindless and scientific illiterates. . Everything you wrote here applies to them, in spades.
Take a look. Pick a climate oriented thread, and read their nonsense. Here is one example. Comment if you like. Those folks are completely at odds with skeptics. They change the subject, call names, refuse to discuss scientific facts, seek motives, ignore data, etc. The scientific method might be written in ancient Greek for all they know. That’s why I like the rational discussions here.
Just because I disagree with your views here does not mean I don’t think you’re a nice guy in person. But really, lately your comments have been content-free.
[snip tone it down please -mod]
Mike says:
August 19, 2014 at 1:10 pm
thank you for taking the time to comment here. You use very few words and say so much The links to your slides are invaluable. What are some of the reasons your colleagues argue against your proposal?
First: there are not many that argue against. Second: some people have careers [and students and research grants] tied up in the ‘precious historical record’ and much of that go out the window, so clearly they are against any changes. Third: what we do is completely open and everybody can repeat, reproduce, and verify what we do, but some people are afraid to do this [afraid of the possibility that we might be correct] so find it easier just to complain.
Uh. I’m the medievalist/historian in the room. And while I’m not afraid of basic algebra (frequently needed and used for sachkritik), I don’t understand why Leif’s work is controversial. Known issues with data, transparent attempts to rectify data.
Little to no change in TSI over time, VAST amounts of stuff that seems pretty darned relevant to climate (like the previous threads about unmeasured underseas vulcanism — that’s an eye-opener).
Not trying to troll, nor to defend Leif — he doesn’t need it, his work will stand or fall on its own merits, just like mine or other scholars’ work will (and in both our cases, one hopes, eventually be superseded by more sophisticated and complete work). But why is this a thing, and can I get it in layman’s terms?
philjourdan says:
August 19, 2014 at 1:55 pm
But going forward, is what upset me
How can you be upset by what has not happened? And will not happen, because we know better.
@Leif
But that was not my understanding of this statement of yours:
The word tend is present or future tense. The past tense is tended. hence my false understanding that once the new numbers were created, there would be no need to maintain the raw data.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 19, 2014 at 11:46 am
bones says:
August 19, 2014 at 11:33 am
I think that variations of cloud cover provide the most likely way to allow greater variability of the solar flux that enters the ocean. This is a testable hypothesis for which efforts to measure the effect are in progress in several different ways.
And already, it has failed: http://www.leif.org/research/Cloud-Cover-GCR-Disconnect.png
————————————————
The cosmic ray connection may be in doubt, but lower tropospheric cloud cover varying by a few percent over solar cycles is shown clearly in the plot that you linked. It is more than enough to account for the variation of energy entering the oceans during solar cycles. Further, global cloud cover decreased by several percent during the 1980-2000 warming period.
The graph clearly shows a solar/global temp. correlation. There is a dip in global temperatures 1800-1825 which correlates with the Dalton Minimum . Then the graph shows a rise in the temperature post Dalton as expected only to stall out with the very weak solar lull around 1900-1910 . Then solar activity picks up after 1910 and global temperatures rise until 2005 or so when solar activity finally declines. At this time the rise in global temperatures also ends.
Thanks for sending the graph which confirms my argument.
I hope this last point is okay. About the graph showing a connection. Thanks. If not I wil tone it down for sure.
The data below shows solar/global temp. in my opinion. http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/iceagebook/history_of_climate.html
I am fine with this if you don’t want my previous post to post. thanks