Ir has been a couple of months since WUWT has checked in on the progress of solar cycle 24. Right now, the sun is in “cue ball” mode, with no large visible sunspots as seen below in the most recent Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) photo:
Since there is a new analysis out at Pierre Gosselin’s website by Frank Bosse and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, I thought it would be a good time to do an update. They write:
[The sun was] rather quiet in January. The determined solar sunspot number (SSN) was 56.6, which is 71% of the mean this far into the period, calculated using the 23 previously measured solar cycles.
The earlier peak occurring at month number 35 (fall 2011) signaled the time of the SSN maximum at the sun’s northern hemisphere. The later peaks occurring at about month no. 68 (mid 2014) are the SSN maximum for the sun’s southern hemisphere.
They also have a prediction, read about it here. Full report (in German) here.
As you can see from the plots in Figure 1, the current level of activity of solar cycle 24 seems close to that of solar cycle number 5, which occurred beginning in May 1798 and ending in December 1810 (thus falling within the Dalton Minimum). The maximum smoothed sunspot number (monthly number of sunspots averaged over a twelve-month period) observed during the solar cycle was 49.2, in February 1805 (the second lowest of any cycle to date, as a result of being part of the Dalton Minimum), and the minimum was zero.(ref: Wikipedia)
Below is what the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center has offered this month. Sunspot count continues below the red prediction line. 10.7 cm radio flux is about at the prediction level, and the Ap geomagnetic index continues to rise, suggesting that the solar magnetic dynamo might be a bit more active, but that activity isn’t translating into increased sunspots or radio flux.
Sunspot Number Progression
F10.7cm Radio Flux Progression
AP Progression
As always, there’s more at the WUWT Solar Reference Page
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
OMG, Whew… all the comments, and commentators, have proven EXACTLY why Government, NOAA and proponents of AGW have been able to hornswoggle the (a majority? No) electorate. I had to take a aspirin after reading it all… stunning. So, I guess it is going to get warmer? Oh, er, no, no, excuse me, colder… in a few states, no? The world? Just the Atlantic, or the Pacific, oh the traffic is terrific. Somethings gotta rhyme As long as you don’ tlike the backs of your hands after the presentation. Thank you.
Get ready folks. We are going to have very cold winters and years without warm summers.
It already is occurring, fewer stations have reported an eclipse of the century mark for the last 3 years running in the U.S. Only a zonal type jet stream is required at this point for the cooler numbers to add up.
And is the only reason why without they are able to claim an overall “warming” of the globe. The jet stream is in mix mode. When not, those tropics will heat sink even more into their waters.
Well:
http://spaceweather.com/images2016/12feb16/hmi1898.gif?PHPSESSID=8a0aql1t6oina82a52ilfjkj95
There is a large sunspot..
so…
don’t worry folks, obama and other leftist will figure out a way to blame global warming, or climate change from planet earth being projected unto the sun.
Silly Anthony, lack of sun spots is directly caused by people driving fossil fuel powered vehicles here on earth.
Can someone explain the new method of counting sunspots?
The new CORE math methodology
same as the old one used a hundred years ago. The main difference is with modern data after 1947 that are contaminated with a ‘double count’ of large spots, see: http://www.leif.org/research/Effect-of-Sunspot-Weighting.pdf
This over-count has been removed from the new series.
Global warming
I hope it goes supernova
[A rather perverse desire. From where are you typing this? .mod]
A lot of scientific jargon and graphs here…but here’s what the Bible says is going to happen…
“Then the fourth angel sounded:And a third of the sun was struck, a third of the moon, and a third of the stars, so that a third of them were darkened. A third of the day did not shine, and likewise the night.”
(Revelation 8:12 NKJVS)
What we’re seeing today might just be a prelude to this prophesy…
I think they were describing atmospheric dust caused by nuclear explosions. Don’t forget about the poisoning of the waters.
I KNEW IT THE PREACHER AT THE CHURCH OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE HINTED IT. THE SUN IS THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE. SOMETHING MUST BE DONE WE MUST EXTINGUISH THE SUN THEN WE CAN CONTROL IT OURSELVES.
Is it just me or does the use of the term “Global Climate Change” suit this particular kind of comment, it just sounds so loony tunes when you read it in this context! lol
Mankind has polluted the earth to the point we are warming into a cesspool of muck and sulfur. Now we find that our greed and arrogance and callous disregard of Mother Nature is cooling the sun. Is there no end to the madness? When are the men on Mars going to get revenge on the evil capitalist polluters of the Earth who are now plotting to cool our Sun from afar, beyond the infinite expanse of the Universe?
“Cyclic Global Climate Change”, Leif Erickson, Greenland and BUFFALO [prunes]. We are lucky they slaughtered all the millions of buffalo that pootered their methane. The world would have been destroyed!
beware of liberals, they believe in the hoax
Good thing we have global warming
Hard to take an article seriously when it starts out with a photo that is either a misprint or just made up. See solarcycle24.com to see that there is indeed a fairly large active area right in the middle of the northern hemisphere of the sun today.
glenn,
You know the sun constantly changes, right? And it rotates.
Sunspots come and go. But lately they’ve been sparse.
I have great fun telling my progressive friends that this is due to anthropogenic sunspot depletion brought on by all the solar panels. 😉
Having fun is good, especially since it doesn’t matter what you tell ’em.
Oh I know that it doesn’t matter much what you tell them but rub their noses in it long enough and an idea or two might percolate through. By the way, the look on their faces is priceless when you congratulate on the wonderful effectiveness of their bird choppers AKA wind turbines.
In response to Leif’s comment:
Leif, your comments in this forum are from time to time obviously incorrect. I would assume you are aware the comments in question are incorrect, the comments are hence disingenuous. A disingenuous comment is a comment that is incorrect and the person making the comment is aware the comment is incorrect. A person making a disingenuous comment is making the comment in question to distract other readers from the truth, the implications in this case, that the standard solar model is incorrect, which is exactly two different solar specialists Gizon and Hanasoge state. Your above comment is not misleading it is disingenuous.
It appears you have agenda which is to push the paradigm that solar cycle changes did not cause the majority of the warming in the last 150 years.
Of course what you say or do no say in this forum does not affect the physics of what is current happening to the sun and how the current change to the sun will cause the planet to abruptly cool. Big surprise there are cycles of planetary warming and cooling that correlate with solar cycle changes. The solar cycle has been interrupted and the planet will cool. This is a falsifiable prediction.
What has found by helioseismological analysis is the convection motion in the solar convection zone is a 100 times slower than the solar standard model predicts. The standard solar model is BS, incorrect, falsified by observations.
Direct quote from GIzon
http://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2012/07/09/researchers-create-mri-of-the-suns-interior-motions.html
The following are peer reviewed paleo climatic observations/analysis results that support the assertion that the solar cycle changes in a manner not predicted by the standard solar model (the standard solar model is not correct, has been falsified by observations, see above for details) to cause cyclic warming and cooling of the earth.
http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/spring2006/Mar1/Bond%20et%20al%202001.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
<blockquote Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system (William: Solar magnetic cycle changes cause warming and cooling); oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.
Note the cyclic warming and cooling of the earth occurs in both hemispheres with the same periodicity. There is no internal earth mechanism that is highly periodic and there is no earth mechanism that can affect both hemispheres. In addition there are cosmogenic isotope changes which are caused by solar cycle changes that correlate with the climate changes. There has been a cottage industry of researchers that have been altering the cosmogenic isotope proxy record in a silly attempt to push CAGW.
That is pathetic. Manipulation of the proxy record (climategate type shenanigans) will not change the physics of what is currently happening to the sun and will not stop the planet from abruptly cooling.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
I would assume you are aware the comments in question are incorrect
Your assumption, as everything else you assert, is incorrect. My mistake to try to correct you, as that is a lost cause.
Greer et al. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Greer-Convection-2015.pdf shows that the analysis by Hanasoge et al. is not correct, so poof, there goes your paradox. But, I think this will have no effect on your know-it-all musings.
Low solar activity 1940s – high temperatures
High solar activity 1960s – low temperatures
Hahaha!! You obviously haven’t bothered looking at the latest doctored anomaly which clearly shows the 1940’s as having lower temperatures than the 1960’s..
Thanks for the laugh…
William Astley
” The solar cycle has been interrupted and the planet will cool. This is a falsifiable prediction. ”
Hi William,
I don’t believe Leif is being disingenuous at all, that’s just his style of commentary, if you say something like “the solar cycle has been interrupted” Leif will latch onto this and give you a hard time, and I’ll have to agree with Leif, when it clearly hasn’t been “interrupted” but even though Leif isn’t clear, I think it’s a poor choice of words to describe this weak cycle.
In your favour though, there has been a slowdown in the movement of the suns polar field, the polarities of which are beginning to move a lot slower around the sun compared to the last few solar cycles of the last century, this has caused a considerable decline in activity, (UV and x-ray are very noticeable and worth keeping an eye on) therefore in my opinion you should be explaining your point from the perspective of the suns polar field and try to understand what possible process can effect such an enormous polar field making it speed up producing increased spikes of intense solar activity or slowing it down reducing solar activity and prolonging solar minimums, increasing the amount of days of little to no sunspots…
Key points: The solar cycle has not been “interrupted”, the movement of the polar field has slowed down.
UV and x-ray (which penetrate deeper into earth’s oceans and crust) have been reduced.
In my opinion the main process effecting the movement of the suns polar field are exterior interactions with planetary mass in the solar system, notable evidence of orbital changes occurring throughout the 400 year sunspot record show a regular increase and decrease of the speed of the suns polar field, translating into stronger, shorter and more active solar cycles when the movement of the polar field increases, the outer orbits of the giant planets become tighter, faster and shorter.
The case is the same for weaker, longer and less active solar cycles, when the movement of the polar field decreases the outer orbits of the giant planets become wider, slower and longer.
Planetary orbits do increase and decrease in speed, two giant planets at the edge of our solar system have enormous orbital changing perturbations that resonate throughout the solar system including effecting the movement of the suns polar field…
I would even go as far to say, when these two giant planets at the edge of our solar system orbits change enough, the suns polar field can fall to rest at it’s geographic poles and cause a full blown Ice age on earth, this would be equivalent to having solar minimum conditions for decades, centuries or even millennia.
The timing of these major orbital changes also occur at the same frequency and time scale as the Ice ages recorded on earth.
So here is a perfect hypothesis of what causes glacials and interglacials on long time scales and also mini Ice ages and warm periods on much shorter time scales using both the suns polar field and changes in planetary orbits at a very basic level and using only known primary principles.
BtW the last orbital changing perturbation of the two outer giant planets occurred in 1999, it caused a minor change in their orbits, these minor orbital changes accumulate over time translating into major orbital change, this not only effects motion but it effects time itself as enormous gravitational stresses are evolved, invoking aspects of the theory of relativity.
Question. Specifically which planets are you referring to, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus or Neptune? Can describe in more detail the perturbation, occurring in 1999, that you mentioned?
Uranus and Neptune, these are the only two giant planets in our solar system that have large orbital perturbations, in fact The planet Neptune was predicted before it was observed due to the observational change in Uranus’s orbit, The recent Perturbation between these two planets began early in 1989 and the conjunction occurred in 1993 and the Perturbation was complete in 1999, another interesting point about Uranus is that it’s poles rotate toward the sun, I measured the timing of this rotation (which was referenced in a paper) and it appears to be synchronised with the suns polar field reversals as if it was locked into the suns polar field,
I’ve also looked into Uranus’s density and mass which appears to be wrong, but that’s a different issue 😉
Thank you so much for your reply. The solar polar shifts is a new one for me to ponder. You may have a major tell, concerning the sun’s magnetic influence on planetary orbital dynamics that is going un-discussed. If you could provide the link to the study you referenced, it would be appreciated. My initial takeaway from your reply is that it is the conjunction of Uranus and Neptune that creates or is fairly and almost exactly correlative to their perturbation. Do you know which is the case? What happens when they are in opposition? Having studied this issue for the two planets in question, have you observed this perturbing behavioral affect any other of the large planets, such as Jupiter and Saturn, or Saturn and Uranus?
Personally, I’m switching from “it’s the sun” to “it’s cosmic rays” for some time.
What do you think regulates “cosmic rays”? you’d be better, switching to reading a book lol 😉
A faint partial halo coronal mass ejection was launched with an angular width of about 270 degrees. Most of the ejected material is heading well north and west of our planet but we are confident that at least a part of this plasma cloud will interact with Earth. A glancing blow will likely arrive at Earth.
http://www.spaceweatherlive.com/images/news/2016/200-c2.gif
Apology about the active .gif from space weather, it may slow down page download. Perhaps moderator could fix it as a passive link.
Hi Anthony
Even the Daily Mail is quoting this thread:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3444633/What-happened-sun-Solar-activity-remains-quietest-century-trigger-mini-ice-age.html
MODs it’s not like there to be a typo for this long… Ir has been a couple of months since…
Let me correct a few erroneous assumptions floating around on this post.
First, the 11-year solar cycles are often said to depict “solar activity”. As if it had some direct relationship to solar radiated power. Actually it depicts the sun’s magnetic behavior, related directly to the solar dynamo, which models the process which generates the sun’s magnetic field, not its thermonuclear power generation. So the TSI, the actual power radiated by the sun, is pretty much a constant, varying only 0.1% over a solar cycle. The variance in TSI caused by the variance in the Earth’s orbit around the sun is much larger, for example.
Secondly, SC24 is indeed one of the smaller cycles. But it isn’t that much smaller than SC19. Maybe 25 flux units smaller. So what’s the big deal? Like the ‘hottest’ year being 0.1C hotter than usual etc.
http://i63.tinypic.com/2gy0zh0.png
But what about the lulls between cycles? Typically the flux goes below 75 for 4 years or so (blue rectangles). If low solar “activity” causes cooling, then where are the signals from these periodic lulls in the temperature record?
Also note the late reprise in SC19 (green oval). So don’t be surprised if SC24 generates one last gasp of magnetic activity in a year or so. And remember that Johanus predicted it.
:-]
Secondly, SC24 is indeed one of the smaller cycles. But it isn’t that much smaller than SC19
Should be SC20, not SC19
> SC20, not SC19.
Oops, Cycle #19 (the so-called “grand maximum”) was ‘fixated’ in my mind. Thanks.
Johanus, The anomaly ( the difference to a long time average) is used in many fields of physics. Your question “How is that meaningful?” shows your lack of knowledge. The 10,7 cm Radioflux is for sure a good proxy for solar activity but the record is too short to compare the actual cycle with SC 5 or SC14. In your own words: “The Radioflux correlates nicely to SSN”, so the SSN is the best long time proxy we have.
http://up.picr.de/24583592ua.gif
And: The SC20 ( black) WAS much weaker than SC24 ( red). And: in the 70s it was global cooler then after 2009. What is your message?
The SC20 ( black) WAS much weaker than SC24 ( red)
No, look at your Figure again.
> The anomaly ( the difference to a long time average)
> is used in many fields of physics.
> Your question “How is that meaningful?”
Sunspots, by their ‘dark’ nature, are already anomalies compared to the bright photosphere. But if I understand correctly, you are computing “SC-anomaly” from the average intensity of sunspots themselves (the anomaly of an anomaly?) so an ‘average’ sunspot would have SC-anomaly=0. Is this correct.
If so, I fail to see how this is useful.
Also I agree with Leif, your SC-24 “thermometer” should show a higher value because temperatures are warmer now than in the 1970’s.
This gives 66% ( month 30 to 75). I don’t know why it’s a mistake to solve this integral from the start of the cyle on instead to use a arbitraraly date. You argue that a weak SC starts weak and a strong SC strong. That’s why the values from the timespan around the max. don’t differ much from the values when one uses the data from month one on for the integration. This illustrates good that the estimation of Waldmeier is right.
My “homegrown way” is the classic way to calculate a product ( SSN*time) from a function over time. It’s not “my way” ( or Frank Sinatras 🙂 ).
Well, after all the confusion it finally becomes clear what you are doing: simply calculating the total area under the curve. Why didn’t you say that in the beginning. Since the cycle 24 has not run to its end yet, you cannot say by how much the ‘cycle’ is lower, only that the integral so far is lower. And you still run into the problem if the cycles have different lengths. The correct way would then be to integrate to the end of both cycles regardless of their lengths and compare the integrals and not the averages [integral/length]. That would give you a measure of the ‘strength’ of the cycle as a whole.
And all that goes back to your Figure of the ‘anomalies’. since cycles have different lengths and the growth rates are different, you should not use a fixed number of months for every cycle. Simply compute the integral for the entire cycle for every cycle and plot that.
The SC 20 was much weaker from month 1 to month 86, the actual one. The strengh of a SC is not defined by the peak, it’s the SC-anomaly over the timespan of the whole SC. This is shown in the figure above.
http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/marv2-1024×609.jpg
Something went wrong with the picture, sorry!
Correct: The SC 24 IS much weaker than the SC 20! Some confusion here. 🙂
TSI variation over the course of a complete cycle is known to affect the amount of incoming TOA solar radiance. But its variance is quite small, it has to navigate the obstructions of our atmosphere, and doesn’t even show up on solar panels which do pick up the noise of our obstructing atmosphere.
http://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/properties-of-sunlight/solar-radiation-outside-earths-atmosphere
Pamela, the point here was NOT the impact of TSI on our atmosphere or climate. The point was: How strong/weak is the actual SC 24 vs. the SC b4., especially the SC 20.
@frankclimate
> The strength of a SC is not defined by the peak,
> it’s the SC-anomaly over the timespan of the whole SC.
I agree that the peak value is not the best estimate of the SC “strength”. But using the anomaly (difference between observed and expected values) seems to make even less sense. For example, if the values track the expected values perfectly then the anomaly (“strength”) would be zero. Anomalies measure the failure to track expectations. How is that meaningful? (Other than providing support for some pet theory)
A better measure of solar activity, IMHO, is the adjusted solar flux (10.7cm), which represents the intensity of solar magnetic activity and correlates very nicely to sunspot counts, but avoids the pitfalls in counting spots. So the mean value of this flux over time should provide a way of comparing the intensity of magnetic activity between various solar cycles.
Using the Penticton data here (http://www.spaceweather.ca/solarflux/sx-5-mavg-en.php) I computed the mean adjusted flux for the first 86 months of cycles 20 and 24, starting at 07/1964 and 12/2008 respectively…
sc20-meanflux = 124.9
sc24-meanflux = 109.6
… which is even closer than my eyeball estimate of 25sfu difference.
So I still think sc24 is not much different, in mean intensity, from sc20, and does not give much support to your cooling theories.
“SC24 [not SC25 as you claim] is only half of average” . You got it right and here was some confusion. 🙂 I corrected the typo SC24-SC25 b4. I hope it’s clear now. And I never made any claim about a (big) influence of SSN (TSI) on GMST.
I get 63%. The average of SC20 for the months 1-85 is SSNavg=106, for SC24 it’s SSNavg=66.6 with the latest data from here: http://www.sidc.be/silso/datafiles which I also used for the calculations of the figures.
“I hope that you are unlike like some others here who are immune to learning.”
I’m not immune, for sure! Anyway, I can’t see a failure to compare SC monthly up to now. I’ll reflect your arguments as I said b4.
I can’t see a failure to compare SC monthly up to now
If so, I have failed in the educational process. Perhaps upon some reflection you’ll see the light.
Regards
“I hope that you are unlike like some others here who are immune to learning.”
I’m not immune, for sure! Anyway, I can’t see a failure to compare SC monthly up to now. I’ll reflect your arguments as I said b4.
Johanus
“Let me correct a few erroneous assumptions floating around on this post.”
” First, the 11-year solar cycles are often said to depict “solar activity”. As if it had some direct relationship to solar radiated power. Actually it depicts the sun’s magnetic behavior, related directly to the solar dynamo”
Actually it depicts the movement of the sun’s polar field, if the suns polar field was at rest at the geographic poles and didn’t move, we wouldn’t be recording much activity including UV and x-rays thus effecting what “power” is recorded…
how’s that plan at correcting a few erroneous assumptions going?
Polar fields are magnetic entities. Exactly the point I was making. Yes, this activity enhances EUV and x-rays at times, but these are a minuscule part of the total EM power radiated by the sun, again the point I was making.
That was not your point, clearly, you didn’t mention “polar fields” or “magnetic entities” anywhere, your point was that “the 11-year solar cycles are often said to depict “solar activity”. As if it had some direct relationship to solar radiated power.” word for word… which is untrue/incorrect..
But that was my point. I clearly said: “Actually it depicts the sun’s magnetic behavior, related directly to the solar dynamo, which models the process which generates the sun’s magnetic field, not its thermonuclear power generation.”, which encompasses all of that magnetic stuff you mentioned.
The problem is that solar scientists tend to say “solar activity”, when they’re only talking about solar magnetic phenomena, such as sunspots. Since this kind of “solar activity” obviously changes a lot over the solar cycles, it often creates the false impression, to the uninformed lay public, that total solar power output is also automatically changing a lot.
I’m not saying that a link between solar magnetic activity and climate change can’t exist. Many more or less plausible theories have been proposed, but have not been widely accepted.
The suns polar field produces localized magnetic distortions when it’s polarities interact with each-other and short-out forming sunspots, increasing “power” output of UV and x-rays etc, there is a direct relationship of solar activity and “solar radiated power”.
You said “the 11-year solar cycles are often said to depict “solar activity”. As if it had some direct relationship to solar radiated power.”
What am I missing? you really did say there was no direct relationship between solar activity and solar related power…
Now you have said “I’m not saying that a link between solar magnetic activity and climate change can’t exist.”
What on earth do you think “solar magnetic activity” is?
*solar radiated power
@sparks
> What am I missing? you really did say there was
> no direct relationship between solar activity and solar related power…
I’m saying that “solar activity” (i.e. solar magnetic activity) is “independent” of total solar power output in the sense that virtually all solar power (99.9%) is generated by nuclear fusion in the core. So solar activity (i.e. magnetic activity) doesn’t generate solar power itself, but merely “modulates” this nuclear power output slightly, such that total solar irradiance (TSI) varies by 0.1%. That’s not enough to explain all of the warming/cooling entailed by “climate change”.
As Leif just pointed out in this post, that 0.1% modulation accounts for no more than 0.1C degree of “climate change”.
Since such a small change is not really observable, I don’t think we can say (yet) that “solar activity” has any real effect on solar irradiance to warm or cool the earth.
Yes, the enhanced EUV has an observable effect on the Earth’s upper atmosphere, enhancing ionospheric radio wave propagation. But still no widely accepted theories how this ends up as global warming/cooling.
Johanus
The interesting thing about total solar irradiance (TSI) is that when you lump a range of different spectral electromagnetic radiation together where much of it varies very little, such as in the intermediate wavelengths (visible region) and the long wavelengths (near infrared) the measured variation does not amount to very much measured over a unit area, in particular the shortest wavelengths which are in the Ultraviolet range vary a great deal more than both the intermediate wavelengths (visible region) and the longer wavelengths (near infrared) almost to ‘the tune of’ 100% from solar minimum to solar maximum, x-rays are not even measured as part of TSI and x-rays also vary from solar minimum to solar maximum to ‘the tune of’ almost 100%, and also take note that the power of electromagnetic radiation in the shortest wavelengths swamps the power of both the intermediate wavelengths (visible region) and the long wavelengths (near infrared). The variability of both UV and X-ray per unit area (which I’ve pointed out many times) is huge compared to that of the visible range and the near infrared.
UV and X-ray being more energetic in shortest wavelengths have a lot more power, they also have different properties than the intermediate wavelengths and the longer wavelengths, for example UV is absorbed by by snow and ice which any first grader knows by simply holding a UV light (black light) over snow and it penetrates deeper into the oceans where as the visible range and the near infrared is reflected by snow and ice clouds etc… UV and X-ray radiation is radiant for a longer time much more than visible and near infrared,
basic points are;
The power range of variability in watts per meter square of UV and X-ray in the more energetic shorter wavelengths is greater than the range of variability of visible and near infrared. .
TSI and it’s measured range of variability, flooded in the visible and near infrared is a very poor argument for suggesting the sun has very little variability. (in fact this TSI measurement is used in both ignorance and dishonesty for the intention of giving the impression that energy from the sun reaching the earth is a near constant, for obvious reasons).
Shorter more energetic wavelengths with the greatest variability between a solar minimum and solar maximum are absorbed by snow and ice.
This gives 66% ( month 30 to 75). I don’t know why it’s a mistake to solve this integral from the start of the cyle on instead to use a arbitraraly date. You argue that a weak SC starts weak and a strong SC strong. That’s why the values from the timespan around the max. don’t differ much from the values when one uses the data from month one on for the integration. This illustrates good that the estimation of Waldmeier is right.
My “homegrown way” is the classic way to calculate a product ( SSN*time) from a function over time. It’s not “my way” ( or Frank Sinatras 🙂 ).
Big pet peeve:
Effect: noun
Affect: verb.
Please type accordingly.
[Reply: Look up ‘Sisyphus’. -mod.]
isvalgaard: In the figure ( comparison SC24 with the average SSN SC1…23 and SC20) you don’t see that the activity of the SC 20 war very near the average and SC25 has so far only 56% activity of the average of the monthly SSN? I do. I also calculated it…
Johanus: The anomaly is the difference between the measured monthly SSN and the average of the monthly SSN of SC 1…23 of the correspondend month of the SC. It’s so difficult? And: I never claimed a link between SSN and GMST or a “SSN-Thermometer”. Your argumentation has something of “Beat the strawman!” .
“and SC25 has so far only 56% activity of the average of the monthly SSN?” please read: “SC24”! I was ahead of time 😀
you don’t see that the activity of the SC 20 war very near the average and SC25 has so far only 56% activity of the average of the monthly SSN? I do.
You are very confused. SC20 was average, SC24 [not SC25 as you claim] is only half of average, yet you claim that SC20 was weaker than SC24. That is what you say you do. Try again.
isvalgaard: “SC24 [not SC25 as you claim] is only half of average” . You got it right and here was some confusion. 🙂 I corrected the typo SC24-SC25 b4. I hope it’s clear now. And I never made any claim about a (big) influence of SSN (TSI) on GMST.
You also claimed that SC20 was much weaker than SC24, so more confusion.
“You also claimed that SC20 was much weaker than SC24, so more confusion.”
My figure ( and calculation) says it right: SC24 so far was much weaker than SC20. Okay?
Then why do [did?] you claim the opposite?
“Then why do [did?] you claim the opposite?”
You got it right: some verbal confusion. Both of my figures:
http://up.picr.de/24583592ua.gif
http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/marv2-1024×609.jpg
show it clearly!
But that was never in doubt in the first place [everybody knew that]. So what was your point?
I contradicted Johanus who claimed, that SC24 was not much weaker than SC20. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/11/solar-cycle-24-activity-continues-to-be-lowest-in-nearly-200-years/comment-page-1/#comment-2144043 . It was much because only 55% of the activity of the SC20. This is much as one can see in the SSN-anomaly also in relation to the other SC.
Actually SC24 is 75% of SC20. Get your numbers right: http://www.sidc.be/silso/DATA/SN_y_tot_V2.0.txt
I get around 63%. The average of SC20 for the months 1-86 is SSNavg=106, for SC24 it’s SSNavg=66.6 with the latest data from here: http://www.sidc.be/silso/datafiles which I also used for the calculations of the figures.
Ahh, I see…you took annual data… for monthly anomalies I used monthly data.
using monthly data on an 11-year cycle makes no sense at all. And if you do use monthly data SC24 [so far] is 81% of SC20. So, get your numbers right.
As long as one uses the same periode for all SC I can’t follow your argument that monthly data “make no sense at all”. The SC20 started in 10/1964 and the average of the monthly SSN until month 86 is 106. The same for SC24 (started in 12/2008) gives 66.6. So I can’t replicate your 81% which is also unlikely if one compares the SC visualy in the figure above.
The maximum monthly data was 192.3 for 1969/03 and 146.1 for 2014/02, thus 81%.
But monthly data is like weather vs. climate. And you cannot just use the same number of months in different cycles as cycles have different lengths.
One can use the monthly smoothed value [which is actually a 1-yr sliding mean] for visual confirmation, Here are the cycles for your visual inspection:
http://www.sidc.be/images/wolfmms.png
The smoothed maxima were 156.6 for SC 20 and 116.4 for SC24 (=74%).
Get your numbers right.
The SC20 started in 10/1964 and the average of the monthly SSN until month 86 is 106.
So, you actually did not use monthly values for the maxima.
“The maximum monthly data was 192.3 for 1969/03 and 146.1 for 2014/02, thus 81%.
But monthly data is like weather vs. climate.”
So you agree that the SSN- average over all months of the SC (as I used it) is a better value for SC “climate” than your comparison of single maximum- months which is more SC”weather”.
“And you cannot just use the same number of months in different cycles as cycles have different lengths”
This could make a bias in the end of the cycles, untill month 86 this is not the case. The shortest Cycle was SC2 with 106 months. SC20: 139.
So you agree that the SSN- average over all months of the SC (as I used it) is a better value for SC “climate” than your comparison of single maximum- months which is more SC”weather”.
What I pointed out was that when you said that you used monthly values to assess the size of the cycle, you did actually not. I just showed that you did not use a monthly value as the size. Now, you confess that you used the average of all the data for 86 months [and for the average it makes no difference if you use daily values or monthly values].
This could make a bias in the end of the cycles, untill month 86 this is not the case.
Very, very wrong. Large cycles rise much faster than small cycles, so the values at the start of the cycle are the ones that make the bias. It makes no sense to use the same number of months at the beginning of the cycle as a measure of the size of the cycle. The values to use are the yearly of smoothed monthly maxima, or the average of all the data in the whole cycle. What you do is simply not correct.
“So, you actually did not use monthly values for the maxima.”
Of course I did.
“The smoothed maxima were 156.6 for SC 20 and 116.4 for SC24 (=74%).
I don’t think that a comparison of maxima is the solution because the “lulls” ( periods with much less activity than normal) also influence the strength of a SC. And my numbers are right! You don’t need to repeat anymore. You compare the maxima of the SC and I compare the monthly average of the SSN. I think my way has more meaning. Maybe you agree.
I compare the monthly average of the SSN. I think my way has more meaning. Maybe you agree.
No, you compare the average SSN over 86 months [or days as the monthly means are just the average of the daily values]. And your way does not make sense as different cycles rise to their maxima in different ways [small cycles slowly, large cycles faster].
“No, you compare the average SSN over 86 months [or days as the monthly means are just the average of the daily values]. And your way does not make sense as different cycles rise to their maxima in different ways [small cycles slowly, large cycles faster].”
1st: I never would write: “And your way does not make sense as…” without an “IMO” or so, it’s a question of courtesy.
2nd: The comparison of monthly SSN and averages also reflects the fact that different cycles rise to their maxima in differnet ways. For the wanted weighting of different SC it should be an advantage. And yes: with the release of the monthly SSN for 02/16 I’ll compare over 87 months and I’ll write: The SC24 has SO FAR x% activity vs. the average. What is wrong with it?
3rd: daily values: This makes really no sense for a 11y- cycle. Anyway, it would not change the picture as a whole.
Facts do not need an IMO.
And what is objectively wrong with your scheme is that since different cycles rise at different rates, comparing the same number of months at the beginning of the cycles does not give you a true value of the size of the cycle. Cycle 24 is likely to be a bit longer than cycle 20, so what would you do when you run out of months for SC20 but there are still some coming for SC24? Again: it does not make sense to compare cycles using the same number of months.
3rd: daily values: This makes really no sense for a 11y- cycle.
The average of the first 86 monthly values is the same as the average of the first 2627 days as each monthly average is the average of the [on average 30.5] daily values.
“Very, very wrong. Large cycles rise much faster than small cycles, so the values at the start of the cycle are the ones that make the bias.”
Why do (large) SSN- values at the start ( of large Cycles) make a bias? They are an early hint? When you only compare the max. of the cycles you don’t include the development over the time and this is a failure in my eyes. Anyway, I’ll reflect your arguments. Hopfully you also mines, I’m afraid our ping-pong is too fast. 🙂
best
Frank
Waldmeier showed long ago that the development of the whole cycle is given by the maximum value. Check out the Figure on slide 3 of http://www.leif.org/research/The-Waldmeier-Effect.pdf to see how the maximum shifts to later and later the smaller the cycle is. This shift must be taken into account when comparing cycles, and that is why your scheme fails.
Finally you have two arguments when I see it correct::
1st: the circle ends “to late” and there are no more data for comparison.
The SSN-values at the end of a SC are very small compared to the earlier stages. A few months can’t change the picture.
2nd: “… how the maximum shifts to later and later the smaller the cycle is. This shift must be taken into account when comparing cycles, and that is why your scheme fails.”
With the monthly “tact” I take this into account and I can’t see that my scheme fails. The “time-delay” of a small SC is NOT reflected wirh YOUR method, comparing the max. in amplitude.
Waldmeier showed that the cycles follow a one-parameter family of curves determined only by the maximum value, so the one number that is important for the size and shape of the cycle is the maximum value, which falls later and later, the smaller the cycle is, and hence cannot [and should not] be got from comparing at a fixed number of months into the cycle. I am not arguing here, just try to educate.
We should stop at this point because I see some kind of selecitve cognition when you cite me uncompletely and with some intention when you write:
“3rd: daily values: This makes really no sense for a 11y- cycle.
The average of the first 86 monthly values is the same as the average of the first 2627 days as each monthly average is the average of the [on average 30.5] daily values.”
This is below your level because the complete cititation of mine would be:
” Anyway, it would not change the picture as a whole.”
There is no use to show me, that an average over a defined time is not changed when using different resolutuions. It’s not fair play! Why?
Well, you tried to be funny with
“3rd: daily values: This makes really no sense for a 11y- cycle.”
But, if you now disavow this one, I’ll let is pass.
As I said, I’m not arguing, but [hopefully] just educating. I hope that you are unlike like some others here who are immune to learning.
“I hope that you are unlike like some others here who are immune to learning.”
I’m not immune, for sure! Anyway, I can’t see a failure to compare SC monthly up to now. I’ll reflect your arguments as I said b4.
Leif, as announced I reflected your arguments and I want to make this approch:
http://up.picr.de/24603216wr.jpg
When you want to have a measure of the strength it’s not very useful to take the maximums, you calculate a rectangle in the figure above. A better value would be the area under the curve or the definite Integral from montht1 to the month n of the SC’s from the function of SSN against time. When you solve this ( mothly running addition from month1 to month 86 up to now) you get for SC 24 63% of the strength of SC20, that’s my result from yesterday. Sorry.
And you should be sorry. Your mistake is to start at 1. If you want to use your homegrown way, then calculate the average from [say] 30 to 75. This is a crude way of estimating some sort of average maximum for the cycle. Try that, and report back with the result.
This gives 66% ( month 30 to 75). I don’t know why it’s a mistake to solve this integral from the start of the cyle on instead to use a arbitraraly date. You argue that a weak SC starts weak and a strong SC strong. That’s why the values from the timespan around the max. don’t differ much from the values when one uses the data from month one on for the integration. This illustrates good that the estimation of Waldmeier is right.
My “homegrown way” is the classic way to calculate a product ( SSN*time) from a function over time. It’s not “my way” ( or Frank Sinatras 🙂
best, Frank
I calculated all integrals from above for all moths and SC’s and the integrals of the risetime of the SC reflect very well the “Waldmeier-behavior” ( “The Waldmeier Effect is the observation that the rise time of a sunspot cycle varies inversely with the cycle amplitude: strong cycles rise to their maximum faster than weak cycles.” from your source). The R² ( lin. Regression) of the integrals from the rise-time months to the SSNmax (13 month smoothed monthly SSN):
http://up.picr.de/24611325kn.jpg
A “forecast” of the SSmax with the help of the integrals to month 30 with linear Regression:
http://up.picr.de/24611345vd.jpg
In red the measured data, in black the failure for every SC.
best
Frank
Not to nit pick, but aren’t you referring to SC20 in the graph above?
There is a conviction among a certain section of AGW sceptics that solar activity can explain 20th century climate fluctuations. I reckon this conviction could ultimately prove to be very damaging to the sceptic argument. If we have reduced activity but increasing temperatures (as I think is more likely over the longer term) then the solar explanation is a bust. Then what? Move the goalposts? Pull another “lagged response time” out of the hat?
Far better we accept there is another explanation for increasing temperatures and that CO2, if not the whole story, is almost certainly a contributory factor. But the warming isn’t anything like the warming expected for high sensitivity and is not likely to be a major problem. That’s the argument that people like Lindzen, Spencer, Jack Barrett and others are making but the they’re being drowned out by solar-driven cooling nonsense which, unfortunately, is what grabs the tabloid press headlines.
The real argument is not about Cooling v Warming. That argument is lost. It’s about harmful Warming v beneficial Warming.
Co2 is not a source of energy, it’s not even a factor on a planetary scale being a trace gas, maybe it’s Cagw sceptic like you pushing nonsense in an attempt to sound reasonable (which you do not) is where the issue lays… according to alarmists the debate is over so why bother blaming sceptics of activity researching alternatives to all this CO2 driven nonsense!!
Co2 is not a source of energy,
who said it was? However emission spectra plots for space show that CO2 does impede the outgoing flow of energy from the earth’s surface particularly in the higher colder regions of the troposphere. As CO2 increases in concentration absorption and, more importantly, emission is likely to occur at .higher altitudes meaning the rate of emission will decrease (S-B Law), i.e. incoming solar energy will be greater than outgoing LWIR energy -> Warming
“plots for space” should be “plots from space”
Anthony:
One big reason the sun appears spot-free is that the AIA 4500 (white light band) instrument is failing.
The SDO folks have taken it off their image table of contents but still generate so we still see it. http://sdoisgo.blogspot.com/2013/12/sdo-is-almost-four-years-old-and-our.html says:
The best replacement for this image may be the HMIIC image, the small one is:
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_512_HMIIC.jpg
See http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/ for the full set.
The HMI observes at 617.3 nm, which is in the visible range, the yellow tone of the image is just to make it look close to what we’d see through a telescope. I assume the spectral line is for an emission line useful in determining the magnetic field, I don’t know if the contrast of the image is tweaked to be close to what we see or is adjusted to make the umbra/penumbra stand out better. Perhaps they try to match the AIA 4500 image of its better days.
Absorption line, not emission line. No tweaking of any kind [except for the color]
Oops, thanks for the catch and info.
There need not be much discussion of this, as solar activity since 1900 is well observed. Here is the variation of the number of sunspot groups since Cycle 14:
http://www.leif.org/research/GN-Since-1900.png
See http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-of-Group-Number-1610-2015.pdf for details.
Figure 36 shows activity since 1610.
The correspondence between contrived global temperature variation and solar cycles is impressive.
That would be ‘doctored global temperature anomaly variation’… I would be surprised if any thought process went into that graph…
Nonsense. Temperatures go up, up, and up, and solar activity since the middle of the 20th century goes down down, and down.
Leif,
a squiggly line went up, up, and up in a doctored untrustworthy anomaly slapped over a sunspot record, with no sense of boundaries or relative scale… defend it all you like, seasonal temperatures on the other hand, on regional basis are clearly influenced by solar activity,
Even having a global anomaly such as satellites only proves that having active solar cycles warm the earth, when we don’t have active solar cycles it will prove having no activity will cool the earth.
on regional basis are clearly influenced by solar activity
As I always have maintained, YES. To the tune of 0.1 degree.
I remember you saying, it’s an interesting figure, is 0.1 degree the average difference between solar maximum and solar minimum? what would the average rate of losing 0.1 degree be for a period of 5 years or 10 years at solar minimum?
It seems like a lot.
We don’t ‘lose a lot’. That is not how the weather/climate works. The 0.1 Degree is the resulting total variation over the whole cycle.
A contrivance is “a thing that is created skillfully and inventively to serve a particular purpose.” Doctoring is a contrivance with a secondary meaning of “treat medically,” which is inappropriate.
verdeviewer,
“Doctoring” in this context means to change the content or appearance of (a document or picture) in order to deceive; falsify… there is no secondary meaning that is inappropriate, you made that up as an insult (or again for context, which you’re really bad at) ad hominem (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining..
verdeviewer says:
“BTW, the the temperature part of the graph is plotted using the current version of NOAA’s dataset from”
Yeah it’s still a doctored untrustworthy anomaly slapped over a sunspot record, with no sense of boundaries or relative scale… 😉 it’s just my opinion but you should run with that graph.
Sparks, global temperatures are in no small part contrived, not just doctored, and, unless you’re just trying to live up to your moniker, I haven’t a clue why my response to your unfounded criticism of my graph and comment inspired such an inflammatory outburst.
A graph of global temperature anomalies from 1900 to 2015 doesn’t need a vertical scale to show a dubious relationship to a graph of solar cycles in the same time frame. I don’t feel I need to apologize for slapping one atop the other, however little thought process was involved.
A graph of global temperature anomalies from 1900 to 2015 doesn’t need a vertical scale to show a dubious relationship to a graph of solar cycles in the same time frame
You claimed that the agreement was ‘impressive’. I would say it is lousy, but people see what they want to see, so if you think the agreement is impressive, stay happy in your belief.
I continue to think the correspondence is impressively lousy, but will refrain from future facetiousness.
You claimed the agreement was ‘impressive’. Not lousy.
“You claimed the agreement was ‘impressive’. Not lousy.”
That’s true. Not lousy, just so inapparent that I mistakenly assumed no reader would take my comment literally and thus did not understand the response.
No one asked “where’s the correspondence?”–which is probably a good thing as I might have replied with “See those little temperature bumps at the peaks of cycles 14, 20, and 22?”
I mistakenly assumed no reader would take my comment literally
There is so much junk, pseudo-science, and silliness posted here that it is hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. So, your lesson here is to say what you mean or else mark it as junk, sarcasm, or the like [e.g. with /sarc].
BTW, the the temperature part of the graph is plotted using the current version of NOAA’s dataset from
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global
verdeviewer,
“Doctoring” in this context means to change the content or appearance of (a document or picture) in order to deceive; falsify… there is no secondary meaning that is inappropriate, you made that up as an insult (or again for context, which you’re really bad at) ad hominem (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining..
verdeviewer says:
“BTW, the the temperature part of the graph is plotted using the current version of NOAA’s dataset from…”
Yeah it’s still a doctored untrustworthy anomaly slapped over a sunspot record, with no sense of boundaries or relative scale… 😉