UPDATE: Some commenters got the wrong idea about this article, see the footnote.
Our resident solar physicist Dr. Leif Svalgaard is one of the scientists involved in the effort
Dear SILSO user,
Mon, Jun 22, 2015 11:42 am
Over the past 4 years a community effort has been carried out to revise entirely the historical Sunspot Number series. A good overview of the analyses and identified corrections is provided in the recent review paper:
Clette, F., Svalgaard, L., Vaquero, J.M., Cliver, E. W.,“Revisiting the Sunspot Number. A 400-Year Perspective on the Solar Cycle”, Space Science Reviews, Volume 186, Issue 1-4, pp. 35-103.
Now that the new data series has been finalized, we are about to replace the original version of our sunspot data
by an entirely new data set on July 1st. On this occasion, we decided to simultaneously introduce changes in several conventions in the data themselves and also in the distributed data files.
There are so many diverse changes that we cannot guarantee that everything will work perfectly on the first try.Our team is too small to make full prior simulations. Therefore, multiple careful consistency checks will be done on July 1st itself, which will slow down the processing. So, please anticipate some delays compared to an ordinary month.
The most prominent change in the Sunspot Number will be the choice of a new reference observer, A.Wolfer (pilot observer from 1876 to 1928) instead of R. Wolf himself. This means dropping the conventional 0.6 Zürich scale factor, thus raising the scale of the entire Sunspot Number time series to the level of modern sunspot counts. This major scale change may thus strongly affect some user applications. Be prepared!
Regarding data files, various files will be replaced by new ones, with new more homogeneous names and new internal column formats. The included information will sometimes change: combining data (e.g. hemispheric numbers together with total numbers), separating data (monthly smoothed numbers in a separate file) or adding new values that were not provided previously (standard errors).
All those changes will be explained in the information accompanying our data, on the web site of the World Data Center SILSO. While the primary files will all be replaced in early July, some other changes will still occur in the next two or three months. During this transitory phase, we thus invite you to visit the SILSO Web site to keep track of the changes, as we are preparing this major transition now scheduled for July 1st, 2015.
An important remark for our faithful observers: the current transition in the sunspot number processing does not change anything to the way you enter your data. So, just proceed as usual on July 1st. Your past k personal
coefficients will simply be recomputed relative to the new re-calibrated sunspot number. We are working on this right now. By the way, the new processing software will open the way towards a better determination of the evolution of each station and so, a better feedback to our observers will become possible in the future.
In the coming weeks, please visit our SILSO Web site:
____________________
Dr.Laure Lefevre
Royal Observatory of Belgium WDC-SILSO
UPDATE: A number of commenters got the wrong idea about this article, conflating the process with the sort of questionable adjustment techniques For example, Dr. Svalgaard comments:
As the text says all observers should continue the way they have always done. There is no such as ‘the traditional count’ for observers. That concept is completely local to the SIDC [now SILSO]
Frederick Colbourne adds:
These adjustments (at the very least) compensate for the faulty decision by one important observer to use an instrument that did not have sufficient resolving power to count the sunspots properly.
Willis Eschenbach sums it up:
Dear heavens, this resistance to correcting the mistakes of the past is most peculiar. Mosh is quite correct. The sunspot count of the past was differently calculated, due to changes in counting methods which are both well known and well explained.
What they have now done is to use the same methodology from start to finish.
Look, there have been some bogus “adjustments” to climate records by various miscreants. But that doesn’t mean we can just use what we have in front of us in any field. Sunspots are a good example. We know where we changed methodology in the past. We know the dates that calculation method changed, and how the method changed. As a result of the change we have two incompatible sets of numbers.
So should we just continue to use the existing sunspot dataset, which consists of two sets of DIFFERENT NUMBERS which were calculated in DIFFERENT WAYS and then just spliced together? That would be nuts, no?
Instead what we need to do, and what Leif and the others did, was to go back to the underlying observations, and to use a single unified clearly-defined method of counting sunspots from the start of the record to the end of the record. This single internally coherent dataset replaces the SPLICED DATASET of the past.
Anyone who thinks that using the same counting method from start to finish is somehow bad and wrong, well, they’re free to use the old spliced dataset … and if you do, I’m free to laugh at your adherence to past mistakes.
Note well that this says nothing about the endless adjustments to the temperature record, which may or may not be justified in any particular case, and which are nowhere near as clear-cut and clean as the sunspot count.
My viewpoint is that this adjustment corrects a clear mistake, and therefore should be welcomed. – Anthony Watts
Perhaps it would have been simple to present the two data graph side by side and explain in plain language the gist of adjustment and its effect on the graph. Svalgaard’s own acknowledgement that ” lsvalgaard June 23, 2015 at 12:37 am, Willis, part of the problem is that the old sunspot series supports a strong solar influence and the new one doesn’t.” should be enough to develop the post further and with utmost clarity rather than chastise those who were confused by the post and suffer Svalgaard’s pretentious tone “So people would rather lose their rationality than give up their preconceived myths. This is normal human behavior from time immemorial and and is demonstrated so vividly here..”
In Leif’s own words:
“The other one around 1880-1900 is due to the [as we now know] erroneous assumption by Hoyt and Scatten that the Greenwich photographic data were homogeneous, which they are.”
Question to Leif;
Was the Greenwich data homogenous or not? If the data was homogenous, as you seem to have inadvertently suggested, then why were Hoyt and Scatten erroneous in assuming that to be the case?
Please explain this glaring inconsistency in your justification for altering past data.
(Archived for reference)
obvious typo: ‘which they aren’t’. You should have been able to deduce that by yourself.
Can you please point me in the direction for the evidence you used to show that the Greenwich data is not homogenous?
e.g. Slide 7 of http://www.leif.org/research/Reconciling-Group-and-Wolf-Sunspot-Numbers.pdf
We compare the Greenwich data with 20 contemporary sunspot observers
I have come up with solar parameter criteria that I think if attained and the duration is sufficient will have a climatic impact. Notice the sunspot count was not one of the criteria.
What is central to what I have done is it takes the guess work out of the equation in that if these solar parameters are meant a climate outcome will be realized. The climate outcome being either a cooler climate, in which case I am correct, or a climate which does not cool in which case I will be wrong.
Based on the data we do have from the past we know the solar parameters I have come up with have been met or closely approached during solar quiet periods of time as was evidenced in the recent solar lull from 2008-2010, and that past solar quiet periods (although we do not have the exact data) probably had solar activity similar to the recent solar lull from 2008-2010 but for a far greater period of time in which case my solar parameters would again be likely meant and would have resulted in lower global temperatures according to the historical global temperature records.
Those historical global temperature records NEVER showing a prolonged minimum solar period associated with a sustained global temperature rise and likewise a prolonged solar maximum period of time associated with a sustained global temperature drop.
The adjustments to the sunspot data will not change those facts because minimal solar activity those being the Maunder Minimum and the Dalton, will still be present relative to all the other periods of time featuring higher solar activity.
One last note is this will not be the end of solar adjusted data this is going to continue, but no matter how much adjusting the quiet periods and active solar periods are still going to be present, along with the temperature correlation of lower temperatures at times of prolonged solar minimum conditions and higher global temperatures at time of prolonged active solar conditions.
THE CRITERIA
Solar Flux avg. sub 90
Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
AP index avg. sub 5.0
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute
Total Solar Irradiance off .15% or more
EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.
IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.
The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general (10 years) which commenced in year 2005.
If , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.
In summary the sunspot adjustment is meaningless as far as solar/climate connections are concerned and my low average value solar parameters which I think will have a climate impact remain intact and solar activity going forward is still unknown and for that matter in the past as is being see by the latest revisions not to mention even now sunspots are not counted in the same way. We still have different sets of data.revisions and this will not be the last revision.
Let me correct the last part of my post.
Solar activity going forward is still unknown and for that matter in the past as is being seen by the latest revisions, not to mention even now sunspots are not counted in the same way. We still have different sets of data. This revision will not be the last revision in my opinion.
Sorry, corrections increase error, so by correcting your post, you’ve made it more erroneous.
Here’s a nice summary from Stanford on the issue. http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/NS-Sept-2013-Sunspots.pdf I still say, however, that it is nice that the count is being tabulated by a number of different groups. There is nothing wrong in that. There is nothing wrong with Svalgaard’s work. These are all estimates of one form or another. What is wrong is when individuals on both sides of the argument make grand statements. Truth is far more elusive than most people think.
In other words, if we think we know, we do not!
Do you know that for sure? 😉
Quick correlation crunch from the math geeks here at the office….
MA12 MA24 MA24L12 MA24L24 MA24L36
WTI -.08 -.17 -.30 -.42 -.50
Data 1979-May 2015
WTI is the Wood for Tree Index
MA12 …12 month moving average
MA24L12 … 24 month mov average of sunspot with a 12 month lag
Quick unchecked conclusion…
Low sunspot numbers lead to warming earth. The 24 month moving average of sunspot number, lagged 36 months, explains -50% of the variance in global temp. Correlation does not mean causation.
Submitted for ruthless peer review and result replication to the WUWT modern peer review process.
Thanks, Mary. A link to the WFT page showing your work would be a place to begin explaining what you are discussing.
As to your “quick unchecked conclusion”, I’ve slowly checked everything from temperatures to air pressure to sea level variations to fluctuations in river flow to lake levels and a bunch of other claimed correlations. Heck, I even went back to see if what Herschel claimed about sunspots and wheat prices was valid, and guess what?
To date, using a variety of techniques (cross-correlation, Fourier analysis, etc.) I have NOT found any statistically significant relationship between sunspots and … well … anything.
However, let me acquaint you with my work on sunspots and invite you to point out any errors in it …
Best regards,
w.
==============================
Usoskin Et Al. Discover A New Class of Sunspots
There’s a new post up by Usoskin et al. entitled “Evidence for distinct modes of solar activity”. To their credit, they’ve archived their data, it’s available here. Figure 1 shows their reconstructed decadal averages of sunspot numbers for the last three thousand years, from their paper: Figure 1. The results…
Congenital Cyclomania Redux
Well, I wasn’t going to mention this paper, but it seems to be getting some play in the blogosphere. Our friend Nicola Scafetta is back again, this time with a paper called “Solar and planetary oscillation control on climate change: hind-cast, forecast and a comparison with the CMIP5 GCMs”. He’s…
The Effect of Gleissberg’s “Secular Smoothing”
ABSTRACT: Slow Fourier Transform (SFT) periodograms reveal the strength of the cycles in the full sunspot dataset (n=314), in the sunspot cycle maxima data alone (n=28), and the sunspot cycle maxima after they have been “secularly smoothed” using the method of Gleissberg (n = 24). In all three datasets, there…
The Tip of the Gleissberg
A look at Gleissberg’s famous solar cycle reveals that it is constructed from some dubious signal analysis methods. This purported 80-year “Gleissberg cycle” in the sunspot numbers has excited much interest since Gleissberg’s original work. However, the claimed length of the cycle has varied widely.
Sunspots and Sea Surface Temperature
I thought I was done with sunspots … but as the well-known climate scientist Michael Corleone once remarked, “Just when I thought I was out … they pull me back in”. In this case Marcel Crok, the well-known Dutch climate writer, asked me if I’d seen the paper from Nir…
Cycles Without The Mania
Are there cycles in the sun and its associated electromagnetic phenomena? Assuredly. What are the lengths of the cycles? Well, there’s the question. In the process of writing my recent post about cyclomania, I came across a very interesting paper entitled “Correlation Between the Sunspot Number, the Total Solar Irradiance,…
Solar Periodicity
I was pointed to a 2010 post by Dr. Roy Spencer over at his always interesting blog. In it, he says that he can show a relationship between total solar irradiance (TSI) and the HadCRUT3 global surface temperature anomalies. TSI is the strength of the sun’s energy at a specified distance…
It’s The Evidence, Stupid!
I hear a lot of folks give the following explanation for the vagaries of the climate, viz: It’s the sun, stupid. And in fact, when I first started looking at the climate I thought the very same thing. How could it not be the sun, I reasoned, since obviously that’s…
Sunspots and Sea Level
I came across a curious graph and claim today in a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Here’s the graph relating sunspots and the change in sea level: And here is the claim about the graph: Sea level change and solar activity A stronger effect related to solar cycles is seen in Fig.…
Sunny Spots Along the Parana River
In a comment on a recent post, I was pointed to a study making the following surprising claim: Here, we analyze the stream flow of one of the largest rivers in the world, the Parana ́ in southeastern South America. For the last century, we find a strong correlation with…
Maunder and Dalton Sunspot Minima
In a recent interchange over at Joanne Nova’s always interesting blog, I’d said that the slow changes in the sun have little effect on temperature. Someone asked me, well, what about the cold temperatures during the Maunder and Dalton sunspot minima? And I thought … hey, what about them? I…
Willis you may have not found anything due to your personal take evaluation of the data. Others do not see it that way.
Salvatore Del Prete June 23, 2015 at 4:08 pm
Salvatore, let me make you the same offer I made Mary above. My work is listed above. People are free to “see it” however they wish.
However, if you (or they) think there are errors in it, then it is your/their task to quote what you/they see as the erroneous part of what I said, and tell us why it is wrong.
Because this hand-waving claim that “others do not see it that way” is a meaningless statement. It goes nowhere, it doesn’t point to anything or anyone. It doesn’t say what I’m supposed to have done wrong.
In short, it’s just mud that you’re trying to throw at me … and in my world, there’s only one reason a man slings vague, handwaving mud …
Because he’s totally out of real ammunition. You know, ammunition like pointing out exactly where I went off the rails in my analyses …
w.
There’s this 1970s analysis of crop yields…..
http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/naldc/download.xhtml?id=CAT76674961&content=PDF
Though the effects of sunspots, or lack thereof, seems to depend on where your farm is.
Sunspots seem to be more influential in Illinois compared to Kansas and have little effect in Texas at all !
Perhaps sunspots have more effect polewards ?
And maybe we should hope for periods of low sunspot activity…
Russian researcher Alexander Chizjevsky developed his Mass Excitability Index in which he related 80% of the most significant historical events on earth occurs to periods of maximum sunspot activity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Chizhevsky
Unfortunately his proposal ran counter to Marxist dialectics and he was given time to re-think his theory in the gulag.
GregK June 23, 2015 at 8:16 pm
Sadly, the poor fellow seems to be a farm advisor or something who is entirely innocent of statistical knowledge. In particular he has NOT adjusted for the fact that he has subdivided his data into 43 solar levels and six states … which is a total of 258 different subcategories. Do you think that you might just possibly find something “highly statistically significant”, say a p-value under 0.01, with 258 different tests?
Running the numbers, I see that with 256 separate tests on totally random data, you have over a 90% chance of finding something that is “statistically significant at the p < 0.01 level" … but of course is not statistically significant in the slightest.
And this, of course, leads to things you point out like say the sun affecting the yields in Oklahoma but not Kansas …
Sorry, Greg, but that link is nothing but a poorly-done data dredge.
w.
“To date, using a variety of techniques (cross-correlation, Fourier analysis, etc.) I have NOT found any statistically significant relationship between sunspots and … well … anything. ”
Willis are you over analysing the data or something? you can clearly see temperature rise and fall with solar activity, sure there’s a lot of noise but the relationship is there.
Sparks June 26, 2015 at 6:16 am
Thanks, Sparks. That graphic might serve as the poster child for bad science. First off, it is relating the temperatures at one point on the planet (Armagh Observatory) with the sun. But not with sunspots. And not with TSI. And not with solar wind. And not with solar magnetism.
Instead you compare it with “the difference between sunspot area and sunspot number”. This is perhaps one of the more bizarre variables in the history of science. For example … what units is it measured in? Square kilometers minus numbers?
But we’ll let that pass. The next problem is that it has no provenance. Which Armagh figures are you using, daily or monthly? Which sunspot data are you using, the historical data or the revised modern data? And finally, where is the statistical analysis?
The problem is that humans are superb at finding patterns where none exist. See the constellations as one among many examples. In a predatory world, the consequences of a false positive (I thought I saw a leopard but I was wrong) are far lower than a false negative (I didn’t notice the leopard). As a result, we are geared by nature to find patterns, even when none exist.
To get around this tendency, we’ve invented statistics. That keeps us from fooling ourselves. Visually, I’d say that the correlation in your graph is pure junk … but I could be wrong, just as you could be wrong in saying it is significant, and until you run the numbers there’s no way to know.
And no, Sparks, I do NOT “clearly see temperature rise and fall with solar activity” in your graph. Perhaps it’s because I’ve looked at so many graphs, but to my tutored eye there’s little correlation there.
And even if there were I’d be sore tempted to view it as a false positive, because what you are measuring is so bizarre that I can’t even imagine how it would have a physical effect. Look, total sunspot area can be re-written as average sunspot area times sunspot count. So if we subtract sunspot count from that, we get
SA * SC – SC
where SA is sunspot average area and SC is sunspot count. Factoring out the sunspot count gives us
SC * (SA -1)
the sunspot count times the sunspot area minus one. One what? Well, in theory one square kilometre, or one million square km, or whatever square square units you chance to be using (which you have also neglected to mention) … unless you measure sunspot area in new units, say square miles, which gives you a whole other answer.
Are you truly serious in believing that the temperature in Armagh is ruled by the average sunspot area minus one, times the sunspot count? I mean, you’re free to believe that, but I wouldn’t bruit it about …
w.
We simply ran some simple numbers. 1979-2015 data of Wood For Trees temps vs the revised sunspot numbers posted here. MA12 is the 12 month moving average of the sunspot number. The “L” is for lag time. The 36 month lagged sunspot number was highly correlated with temp.
The correlation matrix
http://postimg.org/image/eikno4k0d/
I don’t know much of anything about sunspots. But the correlations since 1979 are quite strong in this data…
Caveats…
…correlation vs causation
… short time period
… controversy over sunspot data
… 20 min of work went into this.
Thsnks for that, Mary. What is the statistical significance (p-value) of your results, including the adjustment for autocorrelation? A significant p-value doesn’t mean much, but the lack of one often means a lot.
w.
The stat geeks here replaced sunspots with random numbers using the same spreadsheet and a correlation that large appears only 2.5% of the time. However, I screened five sunspot variables… and the others had much lower numbers. If you test enough combinations on only a 36 year monthly history, then it’s not too hard to randomly achieve that.
Nothing conclusion but just an interesting high correlation on first try.
Next up… using that 36 year model on out of sample data before 1979… We’ll see what that shows.
Way to go, Mary! Run the numbers yourselves.
However, I’d get a new set of “stat geeks”, because it appears that the didn’t adjust for autocorrelation. Real temperature datasets are “autocorrelated”, meaning that a day at -40° is more likely to be followed by another cold day rather than a very warm day. And the statistics of autocorrelated datasets are very, very different from those regarding truly random datasets.
All the best, keep going,
w.
Here in the Southern US, during Autumn, Winter and Early Spring, the coldest days are often directly preceded by the warmest days.
I take your point, but there are a large number of times when that which is most likely is not at all the case.
“go back to the underlying observations” – key phrase there…
Your Buddy Svaalgard should try and correct this awful article http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-weather-britain-facing-mini-5933890. For me Svaalgard, Mosh, Willis = Warmists = 0 credibility.Just for me so don’t worry LOL
Eliza
Willis a Warmist??
Really!
Dang … how embarrassing is this! Eliza has just revealed my secret Warmist identity. See, normally I wear glasses. So taking a lesson from Superman, I came up with a most devious plan that I’ll reveal to you, and you alone. Please don’t reveal this to anyone.
When I post as a warmist, I take off my glasses so nobody can recognize me, not even Lois Lane.
I figure that Eliza must have a pair of those “X-RAY GLASSES!!” that they used to advertise in the back of the comic books. I can’t think of any other way she could have recognized me as a warmist without my glasses.
w.
Climate, or at least climate on a small multi-decadal scale seems to fluctuate with major ocean cycles, since it is unknown what mechanism drives these cycles, you cannot rule out solar magnetic field cycles as a significant influence. The correlation is there, at least until Pinatubo changed everything, this continued attempt and failure of individuals trying to directly correlate monthly surface temps to SSN and use it as a form of evidence against Solar Variability as a significant climate forcing, is not a valid one in my book.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1965/mean:5/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1965/mean:5/normalise
Do you see a trust issue here?
No. I see some uneducated whining. I also see some commentators begging to be fed pablum instead of fixing their own dinner. Finally I see some of the same behavior we normally attribute to low level watermelons who have drank the coolaid without judiciously studying the issue for themselves.
Those who do not want to accept solar variability as a driver of the climate does not impact my thoughts about the subject in any way.
I am going with what the historical climatic record shows and what (talking about from the Holocene Optimum -present) correlates best to it, which is Milankovitch Cycles, with Solar Variability superimposed upon that cycle , with a further refinement of the climatic trends when the AMO/PDO phase, ENSO ,and Volcanic activity are further superimposed upon the climatic trends due to the slow moving Milankovitch Cycles and Solar variability.
I could care less about a sunspot adjustment which is not going to change the fact which is during relative quiet periods on the sun the temperature trend has always been down and during relative active solar periods of time the temperature trend has always been up.
That is what the data shows which has not been manipulated.
Agreed 🙂
Hey Pam, a good book for you to start with is ‘The Dummies Guide to Solar Physics’. That’s the one your guru Lief has studied. Oh, and don’t forget he’s also studied ‘The Dummies Guide to Weather’. Actually, that’s a bit too advanced for him and you…….
Leif is the expert here on solar physics so that is a bit harsh.
I await some evidence of his claimed expertise in climate and meteorology.
But in his own words he said that the solar stuff was just an interest that he developed. He may be the ‘expert’ here on solar physics, but in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.
There is none Stephen, but he knows his astronomy but that does not have to translate to the climate which you point out.
Stephen I think are basic themes are correct and will we realize before this decade ends.
correction- will be realized
You [and assorted acolytes] are getting tiresome. It should be enough that I tell you.
But you can study this [and shut the f*** up]:
http://www.leif.org/research/US-USSR-Agreement.png
There were 11 areas of concern. Area VIII is of interest:
The atmospheric scientist Nixon designated to go to the USSR as the US expert and envoy on this was yours truly.
I believe that the topics mentioned are just what are needed to evaluate the interplay between the climate and various influences thereupon, requiring a good understanding of everything connected with that, from the climate system and up. This is the expertise that sent me as NOAA’s and the US’s representative to the USSR for a several months stint, lecturing at dozens of Soviet institutes and laboratories and facilitating further exchange of data, models, theories, and scientists.
Now, you can compare that to your expertise in these matters.
Please supply links to evidence of such.
Hmm the SALT 1 treaty was signed May 27 1972
the May 23 1972 signing for the agreement you posted seems l instead to have been signed by N. V. Podgorny
Chairman of the Presidium
of the Supreme Soviet
of the USSR
While in the USSR did you get a chance visit the Hermitage museum? I don’t recall if it was closed off to foreigners.
That must have been an experience, I envy you.
Yes, I visited the Hermitage and many other places that were ordinarily off-limits [especially in Siberia], but since I was a Government Envoy I had extensive access. My copy of the agreement states that it was ‘signed by the heads of state of the two nations’, which would indeed have been Podgorny, although there might be some ambiguity between General Secretary and Chairman of the Presidium as to who was really in power.
Back in the 1960-1970s while I was actively and heavily involved with synoptic meteorology I solved a problem that at the time was considered difficult: automatic construction of a weather map presenting all the information one would receive from a weather station including the different kinds of clouds at different altitudes, trends and values of temperature and pressure, humidity, wind direction and speed, etc. This was traditionally done by a small army of ‘weather plotters’ who would get data by telex and plot the information on a large [4 feet x 5 feet] map and try to do this in real time such as always having a ‘current’ picture of what was happening [this was before satellites]. Could one do this with a computer using a large ‘flat bed’ plotter and connected to the global weather reporting [telex and telegraph] network? The first successful demonstration of such a system was made by me in 1965 (and actually copied by several countries). The Figure below shows the operational system in action in 1971:
http://www.leif.org/research/vejrkort-rc4000.png
I acknowledge Leif’s expertise in climate and meteorology as it was in the 60s and 70s.
At that time knowledge of the work of Hubert Lamb and Marcel Leroux amongst others, ocean oscillations, stratospheric temperature changes, global cloudiness changes, jet stream behaviour variations, latitudinal climate zone shifting, upper atmospheric chemistry and sudden regime shifts was pretty limited.
Since then the data has accumulated that enables a fresh stab at solar induced global climate mechanics to be made as per my hypothesis.
In the meantime the mainstream has been distracted by the erroneous radiative theory which fails to deal with non radiative energy transfers and Leif appears to have focused mostly on solar physics to the detriment of his climate and meteorology expertise.
Nonsense, Stephen.
My research interest has always been and still is the interplay between the atmosphere and the Sun. I am, of course, up-to-date on both subjects. A good example of the successful blend of these two branches of science is my analysis of of the EUV-UV variation since the 1740s: http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-of-Solar-EUV-Flux-1740-2015.pdf
and my considerate and professional evaluation of your ‘theory’ is that it is junk.
Leif,
Neither you nor anyone else is yet in a position to declare that my hypothesis is junk.
It was a surprise to everyone that ozone appears to have increased above 45km when the sun became less active yet that fits my hypothesis.
It was a surprise to everyone that the stratosphere stopped cooling and may have begun warming again since the sun became less active yet that fits my hypothesis.
Likewise the change in global cloudiness trend noted by the Earthshine project, the change in jetstream behaviour from more zonal to more meridional, the weakening of El Nino events relative to La Nina events and so on.
I have the only hypothesis that draws all those unexcpected and unexplained changes into a plausible and coherent narrative.
The sun’s ‘fingerprint’ is all over it.
Your ‘theory’ is just hand waving, no numbers, no quantification, and has ‘junk’ written all over it. But there you are in good company, as junk is prevalent in this field.
The stratospheric temperatures do not follow solar activity, but seem much more to depend on volcanic activity, e.g.
http://s11.postimg.org/lxwzon2rn/Volcanoes_and_Lower_Strat_Temps_1978_2014.png
So your basic premise is at variance with the observations. We have discussed this before, so no need to flog that dead horse anymore.
Leif,
Your diagram shows stratosphere temperatures stable or increasing for 18.5 years now during which time there has been no significant volcanic disruption yet the sun has been becoming less active.
During the period of more active sun the stratosphere temperatures were declining apart from two volcanically induced upward spikes.
!8.5 years is also approximately the length of the ‘pause’ and the Earthshine project shows increased global albedo since 2000 which is when I first noted the jet stream changes.
You are ignoring good evidence.
Nonsense, there is no solar activity relationship at all.
In fact, the current temps are just the same as the overall average 1979-2013:
http://www.leif.org/research/Stratosphere-Temps-2014-2015.png
As I said, you have nothing. Your hand waving ‘theory’ is just high-quality junk.
Stephen, you can learn more from this recent presentation:
http://eaps-www.mit.edu/paoc/sites/default/files/users/74/temperature%20trends.pdf
highly recommended that you educate yourself a bit.
I disagree but thanks for the plethora of data which I will study.
On a quick initial look it seems to contain data consistent with my hypothesis.
Leif’s law: Any data, no matter how weird or even wrong, will always in the eyes of the true believer be confirmation of the belief.
You’ve got to believe the rabbit is there before you can handwave it out of the hat.
=========================
That applies to you too 🙂
Except, I’m not peddling any belief
Yah, yah, highest quality product, persuasive if not always perfectly slick sales presentation. I usually buy. There are no thumbprints on the fascicles.
====================
Hey Jay, when you have made a scientific discovery and have the effect named after you then you can be as pissy as you like. In the mean time see the Svalgaard-Mansurov Effect and then take your foot out of your mouth.
“…when you have made a scientific discovery and have the effect named after you then you can be as pissy as you like. ”
I disagree. Anyone can be as pissy as they like, regardless of achievements or lack thereof.
And being rude, dismissive, condescending, haughty, belittling, demeaning and in general a snotty jerk is every bit as off-putting and a mark of poor character in the accomplished upper crust as it is in the great unwashed.
The difference is, when those who are in positions of ostensible authority behave this way it is more jarring.
Since when is being real smart and having professional stature an excuse for lack of manners and patience?
Since when is being a bully and tossing around gratuitous insults considered anything but a net minus?
Anyone can be as pissy as they like. Coming off as humorless and reflexively demeaning is not a mark of class.
Спасибо спокойной ночи
There are a substantial number of cock-sure pronouncements on this post which, considering the lack of more complete understanding that even our ” more educated ” professionals have of the complex interrelationships of the potential causal variables, might be better phrased as conditional statements such as “so far the data shows, or does not show…..”. But then it is many times obvious that such statements are a means of attempting to indicate how much smarter we are than the other bloke. Does not shed a very favorable light upon our discussions.
http://imgur.com/SwJCgrZ
Now if one looks at this chart(in the above) the bottom one with the blue temperature curve and compares it to the latest study showing the solar secular cycle one will see a good correlation between global temperature and the solar secular cycle.
The solar secular cycle trend from 1610-2010, and the absolute values of the solar secular cycle trend correlating with the global temperature trends (1610-2010), and absolute values of the global temperature.
The solar secular cycle trend also shows a distinct increase in solar activity from the period 1930-2005 period, versus the period from 1650-1930 in that the solar secular cycle through out that period of time never exceeds 125 ,in contrast to being above 125 from the 1930-2005 period of time, with a peak of 160!
In addition if one examines the data, at times when the solar secular trend breaks 100 on the down slide the global temperature trend is down although the global temperature value starting points may differ most likely due to other climate items superimposed upon the global temperature trend such as the state of the PDO,AMO or ENSO.
During the times when the solar secular trend broke 100 those being the period 1660 -1720 and 1780-1830 both corresponding to the Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum ,the global temperature trend is in a definitive down trend. In addition even from the period 1880-1905 when the solar secular cycle approaches the 100 value, the global temperature trend is slightly down once again.
Then on the hand, when the solar secular cycle trend exceeds 125 from 1930 -2005 the temperature trend is up and shoots really up when the great climatic shift takes place in 1978 which is when the PDO ,shifted from it’s cold to warm phase.
The data from the above shows quite clearly that when the solar secular cycle breaks 100 on the down slope look for a global temperature cooling trend to begin from what ever level the global absolute temperature is at, and when the solar secular cycle rises and breaks through 100 on the upside look for a global temperature trend to rise from what ever level the global absolute temperature is at.
A general rule I see if when the solar secular cycle exceeds 125 global temperatures trend up or are at a higher level and when it breaks 100 on the downside global temperatures trend down or are at a lower level.
If this latest solar information is correct and that is a big if ,but if it is correct, it shows the climate is more sensitive to primary ,and the secondary effects associated with solar variability.
In addition my low average value solar parameter criteria for cooling may be able to be adjusted up some , due to this latest information.
One last note, it looks like around year 2010 the solar secular cycle trend finally broke 100 on the down swing which would be the first time since 1830, when the solar secular cycle broke 100 on the up swing and had since stayed above that level until year 2010.
THE GRAPH SHOWING THE SOLAR SECULAR CYCLE IS ON PAGE 13 OF THE PDF I HAVE SENT . LOOK BELOW.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Maunder-Minimum-Not-So-Grand.pdf
The upshot is Leif latest data on the adjustment f sunspots does nothing to diminish a solar/climatic connection., and I have just showed that to be the case by using his latest data.
Leif is great when it comes to the sun but he is not a climatologist. Enough said.
The old fudge factor is dead.
Long live the new fudge factor!
We are supposed to believe that the new formula turns the old oranges into lovely apples so we can compare them to the apples we eat today. I put little value in the old data except for entertainment value.
My computer started sputtering an advertising crap loudly while reading this thread. Is there a way to tell advertisers that obnoxious sounds are not welcome?
Go to adblockplus.org and download AdBlockPlus.
or clik pause button LLcorner of ad
This appears to be quite a change from an earlier “calibration”, Leif.
http://www.leif.org/research/SOHO23.pdf
When did you publish this paper?
Published 2009, but there is really no significant change to speak of. We have firmed up some of the older values by further analysis and new data, but the fundamental issue is unchanged.
I love the way Dr. Svalgaard’s blunt manner defeats so many people. He’s a master. Y’all have to know he’s grinning from ear-to-ear at all the squawking. You’re playing right into his hands, and I love to watch it play out. The educated doctor toying with the grouse. Ya gotta love it. Sometimes the entertainment is even better than the science here at Wattsupwiththat.com!
You are right about that: the science at WUWT has never been particularly good. Too many squawkers as you put it.
Isvalgaard:
“squawkers” is right. The place is full of experts … who aren’t. I see Salvatore is a climatologist and you’re not for instance. You say you are a meteorologist. So am I – well trained and 32 years with the UKMO, and retired 8 years now. Makes no difference though – they still think they know more than you/me. In fact they hold two contradictory views in their heads at the same time, a) that they know more than the experts, and b) that they despise the expert his knowledge, with “appeal to authority”, often coming mixed with their “squawking”.
Now tell me folks – is that not the way the world works – we learn stuff from the experts, ie knowledgeable in their field? …. you know like when we went to school/Uni ?
If you don’t like their “view” doesn’t make you, defacto “correct”, especially without solid evidence (slayers) – which is why science has a way of rooting out “crap” and coming to a “consensus”.
Que “squawking”.
‘Cue’ or ‘Queue’, is there a consensus?
============
So you were sent to Russia a long time ago, apparently. Don’t see any mention of your name in the article. As a matter of fact, I don’t see your name mentioned in many places apart from this site………
What a nasty little mind you display.If you must, check this: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/261546a0-Olson-SSSR.pdf
The “squawking” comment is just good common sense, common observation. It’s all that extra stuff, outside of good civil debate. If a person wants to make a jab, do so in good taste and don’t look desperate when doing it. Once you get personal in a debate – you lose.
I agree, but most ‘squawkers’ do not provide any common sense observations. They are simply just whining.
“which is why science has a way of rooting out “crap” and coming to a “consensus”.”
Hey, have you been following the CAGW climate science thing much?
What do you think? Have you? Are you up-to-date on their latest?
Establishment scientists have a way of shutting out new ideas, or any which conflict with then current paradigm.
Which is why science (whether medical or the other kinds) tends to advance by paradigm shift, rather than by gradual modification of ideas.
Do you suppose all of those doctors who, after performing autopsies and such, refused to wash their hands before delivering a child or performing other procedures, knew they were completely wrong? Or were they dead certain they were correct?
I imagine they may have made very similar comments to some we are seeing here.
One could write a very thick book detailing even the modern examples such events.
This book is getting a lot thicker every single day that the CAGW meme holds sway.
Establishment scientists have a way of shutting out new ideas, or any which conflict with then current paradigm.
You are barking up the wrong tree here.
I’m not an ‘Establishment Scientist’. On the contrary, I am a gadfly, finding faults with many current paradigms, e.g. the establishment paradigm that solar activity the past half century has been the highest in 12,000 years, the establishment paradigm that solar activity on short time scales is random [ http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Sector-Structure.pdf ], the establishment paradigm that the sunspot number record is good, the establishment paradigm that the cosmic ray record is calibrated correctly, and several others of a more technical nature.
Sir, I was not speaking of you in this comment.
But of the comment in general.
And my response to Toneb was to his remark, and I was not referring to you at all. I am sorry if it appeared otherwise. He, unlike you (I am willing to take you at your word as being not in the warmista camp) sure sounds like he loves a good climate consensus.
And yes, I have been following the CAGW meme for many many years, although I got so sick of the pointless argumentation that I stopped paying attention several years back, and only recently began to participate in any discussions.
My attention was rekindled over the past year when I began to learn of and follow what was being said on various blog sites, including this one.
I very often have more questions than answers, and most of what I “know” may well be wrong. But I am paying attention, and try very hard to be objective and to discern who is “right”.
BTW-My comment way up top in regard to Mr. Mosher was an oblique and sort of but not completely tongue-in-cheek reference to him, and not at all to you or your work.
I have no idea if you follow other stories here, but the Mosh, as many refer to him, has a habit of interjecting short hit and run comment bombs, and of seeming to argue with every point made regarding adjustments to temperature data. My impression is that he disagrees with anything that makes the present time seem unremarkable.
And finally, although I would not presume to make suggestions to a grown man or women regarding how they should interact with others, I myself have to try to keep a thick skin when discussing anything remotely controversial. My best idea for myself is to think like a lawyer…everything is an argument, and none of them are personal.
And thin skinned lawyers…well… is there such a thing?
Menicholas, June 26, 2015 at 7:48 pm
I was not speaking of you in this comment.
Some advice: always say who, what, and when if you refer to something, unless it is completely obvious and thus not necessary.
“the establishment paradigm that the cosmic ray record is calibrated correctly, and several others of a more technical nature.”
Personally, I prefer the technical to the tedious. I have far more interest in the stellar mechanics of the sunspots and the cycles and how and why they vary, than in trying to parse through old records to discern or glean a better accounting.
Not a criticism…on the contrary, I am in awe of such a patient and years long effort.
I am curious though, as to whether your stated belief that the sun plays only a minor role in climate variations
is due to having decided that some specific other factors play the major role.
What causes the onset and end of the interglacials?
What caused the LIA?
One thing I am sure of…textbooks fifty or a hundred, or maybe even only twenty, years hence on the subjects of astrophysics and climatology will have some big surprises.
Lief, Is there a text file available giving the new sunspot numbers?
see reply to Rik, below
Leif,
To be concrete regarding the current SC 24. As I understand it, all the original data (until now) of this period will be divided by 1.20? This means that a valid graph about SC 24 still could be made, either using the old data or the new data. (Multiplying the new data with 1.20 would give the old style data.)
It is not quite that simple, so the 1.2 factor is only a rough approximation. The weight factor is not constant, but depends on the sunspot number itself. This is all described in http://www.leif.org/research/Revisiting-the-Sunspot-Number.pdf
It is best to wait for the official release.
I have my own thoughts on this, that are not exactly the same as the ‘official’ version. You can see my proposal for building a sunspot number at my website http://www.leif.org/research/Building-a-Relative-Sunspot-Number.pdf but beware of the difference between my version and the ‘official’ one. The two serve different ends, one for correlative studies with terrestrial phenomenon and one to use for studying the Sun. The dust has not settled on this yet.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3136780/You-need-wrap-UK-set-plunge-mini-ice-age-Met-Office-warns-one-five-chance-temperatures-drop-leaves-seen-17th-century.html
I like the several hundred year old picture of the bicycle on the ice.
What a confused article, and what a confused science, and what a confused polity.
====================
Historical sunspot numbers are about to be given an adjustment. Unfortunately, when lay people hear such words, rightly or wrongly it makes people lose confidence in scientists and their data. What was so wrong with the original data for it to be in need of adjustment, is what they wonder, which to them means that the original data couldn’t have been reliable in the first place.
No, the real big debate here is obvious: a number of scientists are desperate to deny that the sun, our local star which outsizes all the planets…our earth is so small, it would be a tiny blot on the surface of the sun…has no direct effect on the climate CHANGES.
The idea that the sun is now entering a phase whereby it is increasingly a ‘variable star’ is so scary, few want to talk about this. Instead, hope is piled on the concept that humans control the climate and things we do will stop the Ice Ages.
We are in an Ice Age still. We still have no idea outside of the concept that the sun is acting up, why Ice Ages not only begin suddenly but end very suddenly. Unlike previous eras, this on/off cycle looks like, when you graph these, the pulses of a beating heart.
Why is the warmest time in an Interglacial always the earliest warm period and not at the end of these cycles? It does not get warmer and warmer, it gets colder after the initial flush of warming heat melting massive mile thick glaciers very rapidly, instead, it is a jerky steady decline leading to falling off a cliff into massive re-glaciation.
Many of us (and most certainly in my astronomer family!) believe the author of all this is our sun shifting gears somehow. We also propose that once the continents which are moving all the time, end up bunched together at the North Pole, we will have continuous Ice Ages. Runaway global warming just is not going to happen.
A few months back there were some articles about lightning, and while discussing that, many very interesting and surprising and seemingly relevant topics were brought into the conversation.
Things like the gamma rays that are now known to originate within thunderstorms, in addition to new information(new to me, anyway) on the better known but still largely mysterious upward directed lightning such as sprite and blue jets, and the implication that these are related to huge electric fields that penetrate the Earth and extend into the uppermost portions of the atmosphere.
That these interact with and are influenced by the solar wind in ways that are poorly understood cannot be ignored. That these currents penetrate the earth, and that electric currents are closely associated with earthquakes and perhaps volcanic activity is an idea that I would have called kooky not long ago. But can these things be ignored?
At the very least, such phenomenon points up how we do not know as much as we think we know, and how much there remains to be discovered.
Until these processes are understood in detail, discounting a possible influence on weather and climate is not just unscientific, it is willful ignorance.
One must take account of all the known facts if one is to strive for understanding of that which remains unknown.
And after accounting for all known facts, one may then begin to discern the influence or lack thereof of each part of the puzzle.
When an innocent person is accused of a crime, and then convicted, it seems to be often overlooked that a guilty party is walking free among us.
CO2 is innocent.
So, regarding the ice ages and century and millennium scale variations, who the hell done it?
And these phenomenon related to lightning are only a single topic among several which are, in my view, largely ignored and perhaps highly relevant.
Anyone concerned that Leif is a staunch believer that variability in solar activity has little or no effect on Earth’s climate, and is adjusting the sunspot record to reflect this belief?
Personally I use Leif’s adjusted numbers along with any other data-set I can get my hands on while studying the suns polar field, and the adjustments do not alter anything that I understand about how the sun behaves or how the solar system behaves and the combined effects on planetary climate systems, a more important debatable issue and the elephant in the room is; how our sun is hypothetically the only body in the known universe that can have movement without force, this refers to the belief that planetary bodies in our solar system have an insignificant influence in the suns polar field reversals, that are the cause of the sunspot cycle and is the cause of variability in the solar system including planetary climates.
The current dynamo theory places the sun travelling around a galaxy with strong planetary polar fields orbiting and [NOT] interacting with the suns polar field in a significant way as to adjust it’s motion, instead the sun itself is thought to generate a “dynamo” as a result of the difference between it’s geographical poles and the diameter of it’s equator, even though it’s the equator of the sun that the planets orbit, as a result of their formation, the interaction of the sun’s polar fields and the direction and speed of the motion of these polar fields as they rotate around the sun also causes the direction the sunspots travel and sunspot intensity.
There is a test for a ‘Planetary Inclusive Dynamo’ this is where the sun’s polar fields lose momentum and partially reverse or even slow down and not reverse at all, this abrupt halt in the suns polar field reversal can only be a result of the changing interaction of planetary polar fields with the sun’s polar field as planetary orbits change over time causing an equilibrium and enough balance to have less influence. one result of having a slow down or halt of the suns polar fields is that their will be little or no sunspots for long extended periods, and if there are no sunspots for extended periods possibly centuries, Ice ages occur.
(There will also be less geomagnetic activity caused by the interaction of the suns polar fields with the earth as the sweep past during solar maximums as there would be none)
That, Sparks and the sun travels along the outer branches of the Galaxy and moves in and out of the influence of other mega-systems, dust levels, etc. as we travel relentlessly towards the black hole at the center of our galaxy which will, probably 10 billion years from now, devour our sun which will probably be a dead star some time before then.
It had occurred to me that a comprehensive historical SSN record based on original data and using a consistent method was needed. I would say Dr. S and his group have done a well thought out and reasoned job of it. This thread seems to have half turned into recess at the kindergarten. Appreciation to Dr S for trying to encourage some scientific rigor in the discussion (although in some cases he appears to tilting at windmills) and putting up with the abuse and sillyness .
As to the “solar” connection, I would see the climate as similar to a PID controller with multiple mostly negative feed backs and multiple variable levels of damping (perhaps I’m stating the obvious). Chaos of the Mandelbrot variety, until you use fine enough resolution and the correct algorithm, it is just noisy internal variation. Since ‘DEEP THOUGHT’ is not even on the distant horizon, I fear it may all be a colossal waste of time to try to analyze every little wiggle in the temperature record. The CAGW types are simply too short sighted. I don’t care much about the last 150 years of temperature when it has not varied demonstrably from the last 12,000 years.