Cycle 24 Solar activity slowly ramping up (this month)

After being in a slump last month, it seems that sunspots are starting to pick up again as this latest SDO image shows:

latest_512_HMIIC[1]

This of course is just a minor blip, as the trend is downward, as we now are on the downslope of cycle 24 activity as this plot from Dr. Leif Svalgaard demonstrates. Click to enlarge.

tsi-sorce-cycle-24

(updated image per suggestion of L. Svalgaard)

Here’s more from the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center Plots (updated monthly):

 

See even more on the WUWT Solar reference page

0 0 vote
Article Rating
170 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Marcus
March 17, 2016 10:13 am

Antony…” it seems that sunspots are string to pick up again as this latest SDO image shows: “….STRING ???

Marcus
Reply to  Marcus
March 17, 2016 10:14 am

Oops…Anthony ……dang sticky fingers are contagious ! LOL

george e. smith
Reply to  Marcus
March 17, 2016 10:33 am

It also seems that they are never smooth as they are always predicted to be.
g

Marcus
Reply to  george e. smith
March 17, 2016 10:37 am

..My fingers ??

Richard111
March 17, 2016 10:23 am

Seems like recent activity is limited to the northern hemisphere. Is this normal at this stage of the cycle.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Richard111
March 17, 2016 10:51 am

They do seem to be stalling about crossing south, I would like to know if the magnetic polar flip has occurred yet. It seems to me that would move the activity to the south as the cycle wanes. If Leif or someone would please clarify…

Reply to  Pop Piasa
March 17, 2016 10:56 am
Pop Piasa
Reply to  Pop Piasa
March 17, 2016 1:04 pm

Many thanks, Doc. This is the first solar cycle I’ve closely observed and I’m determined to learn from it.

William Astley
March 17, 2016 10:31 am

Solar observations continue to support the assertion that the solar cycle has been interrupted which is a once in a 8000 year to 10,000 year event.
The sunspot count would if the observation method had not been changed be, half of current.
Oh well, the warmists have not figured out the political and practical implications of in your face scary global coolng. There are cycles of abrupt cooling in the climate record. The cycles had and have a physical cause. The sun can and does change to a state which can and does cause abrupt cooling.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2016/anomnight.3.17.2016.gif

Reply to  William Astley
March 17, 2016 10:41 am

Solar observations continue to support the assertion that the solar cycle has been interrupted which is a once in a 8000 year to 10,000 year event.
No, William, there is no evidence for any of that.
The sunspot count would if the observation method had not been changed be, half of current.
More nonsense. Changing the scale factor does not change the variation of the physics. What you are saying is that the temperatures in Europe are only a third of those in the USA [Celsius versus Fahrenheit].

Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 17, 2016 11:00 am

So, we are not seeing smaller spots than they saw in the past and with that counting a higher number?

Reply to  astonerii
March 17, 2016 11:02 am

So, we are not seeing smaller spots than they saw in the past and with that counting a higher number?
No, sunspots are [deliberately] counted with the same small telescopes as in the past.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 17, 2016 12:45 pm

That is very good to know. Thanks for the reply. I had been led to believe through some posts on other sites that our technology was allowing more sunspots to be seen and counted. Maybe they did not intend that the way I read it, that those counts were what were being incorporated into the official record.

billw1984
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 18, 2016 5:05 am

That might be a natural supposition if one had no other knowledge, as this is true
for hurricanes and tornadoes and possibly other weather events such as minor floods
and droughts. The use of satellites, Dopler radar, and modern communications,
all have contributed to we humans being much better informed about weather
events than in the past. Using the same telescopes for sunspots is interesting!

Reply to  billw1984
March 18, 2016 5:19 am

Using the same telescopes for sunspots is interesting!
Here is more on that, and a plan:
http://www.leif.org/research/Antique-Telescopes-and-Sunspots.pdf
We are now actually doing this

Steve Fraser
Reply to  William Astley
March 17, 2016 10:49 am

Here is Feb 1. My fave part is the ocean temp anomaly around England. February 1: yellow, now: blue!
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2016/anomnight.2.1.2016.gif

Latitude
Reply to  Steve Fraser
March 17, 2016 12:03 pm

I hate those anomaly maps….
go back 5 years….10 years….keep going back
the same places are yellow, orange, and red….
That’s called normal….not anomaly

Reply to  Steve Fraser
March 17, 2016 12:50 pm

“That’s called normal….not anomaly”
The term is anomaly. It is a term of “art” which means you cannot apply the common or ordinary meaning. It doesnt mean abnormal. It doesnt mean exceptional. It means deviation from an conventionally defined mean.
For example: Suppose I define the mean temperature as the average of every year from 1900 to 2000.
The mean temperature of the air above land would be something like 15 C.
if 2016 annual average was 15.1 C we could define this two ways:
15.1C or
+.1C anomaly from the mean..
or if it was 15C we would say 0C anomaly. Which means no Deviation from the mean
The other way to see this is that the word “norm” can mean to “average”
That said, You will note that UAH never posts temperatures they only post anomalies. They must be part of the CAGW cabal

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Steve Fraser
March 17, 2016 1:26 pm

Right. Normal temperature values should be determined from much bigger time slices than they are presently. We haven’t had the ability to monitor the entire globe long enough to establish norms and cycle periods. Anomaly maps are just like models, they depend on ideal conditions which don’t exist in actuality and should be reasoned with accordingly.

DonM
Reply to  Steve Fraser
March 17, 2016 2:00 pm

Not arbitrary; not random or on a whim … very calculated.

macha
Reply to  Steve Fraser
March 17, 2016 3:06 pm

I would prefer to see anomalies as deviations from Median rather than Mean. I have always preferred median over means because means are influenced more by variation in data rather than representing the norm, whereas median does.

Greg
Reply to  Steve Fraser
March 17, 2016 7:48 pm

Steve Mosher:

It is a term of “art”

Yes, the art of deception. These terms have been chose load the language. It implies that any change from a perfectly climate is abnormal.
In the same way “climate change” is presented as being the biggest problem faced by humanity and has morphed into any climate change being synonymous with human caused climate change when we know there was an early 20th c. warming that was just as rapid that was not human induced.

John@EF
Reply to  Steve Fraser
March 17, 2016 9:09 pm

“Um, no. In climate data, it means whatever 30 year baseline the researcher have decided to choose/stick with.
NASA GISS for example, chooses 1951-1980, one of the coldest periods in the 20th century. [So] naturally their “anomaly” from that baseline is higher. Its an arbitrary choice on their part.”
~ AW ~
Um. no. NOAA uses the full 20th century for their baseline. And, I find it astounding that after several years you are still inexplicably hung up on the on the completely irrelevant baseline selection by NASA. Truly strange. Your responses to Mosher make you sound like a bitchy little girl.

billw1984
Reply to  Steve Fraser
March 18, 2016 5:09 am

I suppose they could call it a deviation, but that also has negative connotations. Delta would be a more neutral term, I guess. May be stuck with it.

MarkW
Reply to  Steve Fraser
March 18, 2016 5:13 am

I love it when newbie trolls pop up and start telling everyone else how to behave.
Ego much?

Reply to  Steve Fraser
March 18, 2016 8:00 am

How would that image (and any other temperature/height anomaly chart) look with a proper 60 year (to catch both positive & negative AMO/PDO cycles) baseline? Is it possible to construct such a graphic?

Brandon
Reply to  Steve Fraser
March 18, 2016 8:32 pm

John@ef
Perhaps I missed something, but Anthony commented on the GISS temp series and their choice of 30 year period and your response was that NOAA used a longer period. A few questions come up:
– doesn’t NOAA actually use 30 year base periods on most stuff?
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/wksst/5.gif
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/ANIM/sfctmpmer_01a.fnl.11.gif
– You didn’t say if the GISS example was correct. It is.
– You didn’t mention if most of the other temp series use 30 year periods. They do.
– In complaining about non-uniform base periods that are the choice of the groups, it would actually strengthen his position to show that NOAA is another group that does not follow any standard definition.
– for a bit of humility, why not actually go through the various temp series and tell us all how many of them use 30 year (or less) anomaly periods and tell us how standardized or uniform the baseline periods are.
Perhaps if you spent more time actually looking at the data instead of calling people names, you might sound intelligent instead of sounding like a petulant child.

John@EF
Reply to  Steve Fraser
March 19, 2016 9:27 am

@ Brandon, March 18, 2016 at 8:32 pm:
Yes, Brandon, you missed something. Mosher made a simple, illustrative post stressing a more precise use of terminology surrounding discussions of climate temperature measurement. He used an example that included a 100 year baseline period, which happens to coincide with the baseline used by NOAA. Sure, at the end of his comment, Mosher took a small jab at those who, for whatever unexplainable reason, cannot grasp why the use of anomalies is important for best-practice measurement accuracy … but otherwise Mosher’s comment wasn’t particularly belligerent.
Unfortunately, Mosher lives rent-free in Anthony’s head; and Anthony felt compelled to chime-in with an all-too-frequent petty reply. Not only was his comment petty, IMO, but he inexplicably dredged-up an unrelated point of long-time personal obsession that has absolutely zero scientific import – that being NASA’s current baseline. Skeptics and non-skeptic alike have pointed this out to Anthony on numerous occasions, and it seemed that he had finally let it go. ….. Wrong. My point was that kind of irrelevant, tangential reply has the visceral qualities of a sissy slap-fight. Anthony is certainly free to make that sort of reply, but he shouldn’t be surprised at being called out for it.

Reply to  Steve Fraser
March 19, 2016 6:14 pm

John@EF
NOAA is part of the Department of Commerce. NASA is not. What one does is nearly unrelated to what the other does. So Hanson’s former fiefdom uses 1951-1980 and NOAA use the 20th century. Both choose other time periods just as they please. The DoTrans uses miles. DoState uses little black dresses and the Marine Corps is always faithful. It is a big Government spending $3.5 billion and is the Nation’s largest employer. Most of the parts seem not to talk to the others most of the time.
Was there an actual point to your comment or are you still high? And how is Bernie? Only partly sarcasm as your comment is not connected to anything else in the thread.
“Bitchy little girl” says you are with Bernie since you refer to Hillary negatively. Yes, sarcasm or snarkism. I object to the term as sexist and I am a REAL American.
Without meanness, try making actual points and without the hubris and ad hominum. You will be taken seriously if you do that.

JohnKnight
Reply to  Steve Fraser
March 20, 2016 12:48 pm

Steven Mosher,
Are you disputing that ‘anomaly’ is being used in this realm in a manner that is anomalous? ; )

finnpii
March 17, 2016 10:31 am

The sunspot/cosmic ray/cloud connection is very compelling and is my climate change hobby subject of the year.

Reply to  finnpii
March 17, 2016 10:47 am

finnpii
That being the case you may wish to consider this as an alternative to the cosmic ray hypothesis:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/

finnpii
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
March 17, 2016 11:08 am

Stephen: Thank you. Before I peruse your links, my pet hypothesis is this:
1. There is a rough correlation between global temperature anomaly and sunspot activity, separated by ~60 years.
2. Sunspot magnetic activity controls cosmic rays which affect cloud formation. More solar irradiance reaches the earth’s surface during high sunspot activity. This extra heat is absorbed by oceans, primarily in the tropics.
3. The known ~60 year ocean cycles (AMO & PDO) transfer this heat to higher latitudes over this time frame. As the gradients between warmer oceans, colder oceans, & atmosphere increase, ocean heat is transferred to these colder air and water masses.
4. The ~60 year ocean cycles may be tied to a phenomenon of torsional oscillations in earth’s outer core. (Marcus Length-of-day study)
5. This process is continuous and may be mathematically expressed as global temperature anomaly being proportional to the integral of sunspot activity, centered on a mid-range sunspot number. Cause and effect are separated by up to ~60 years.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
March 17, 2016 1:04 pm

Yes, that is similar to the Svensmark hypothesis but I favour increasing lines of air mass mixing along wavier jet stream tracks.
As regards the length of day issue, that may be a factor in the 60 year cycle but I’m sure a number of different factors combine to produce the observed outcome.

March 17, 2016 10:35 am

Sunspots, like the climate, are something exhibiting cyclic patterns with no proven cause. I know just enough to realize that anyone claiming certainty in either field is probably wrong.

Resourceguy
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 17, 2016 10:55 am

Correct, but some admissions of the importance of long term cycles would help for starters. We don’t even have that in climate models. Fundamentally, it is the lack of discussion about data limitations and the limited number of turning points in long range cycle data that harms science credibility. This no different than mining a bad data set for a publication. The issue in long term cycles is insufficient data, number of cycles, and unexplained irregularity in the cycles.

emsnews
Reply to  Resourceguy
March 17, 2016 4:35 pm

And above all, the fact that we know for certain the Interglacial climate situation is short lived every single time it happens and we don’t know exactly why.

Seth
Reply to  Resourceguy
March 17, 2016 5:57 pm

Resourceguy wrote: some admissions of the importance of long term cycles would help for starters. We don’t even have that in climate models.
State of the art climate models take the solar irradiance spectrum as an input, not just total solar irradiance.
So that’s the next level up from merely taking sunspots into account.
Models by which the past solar spectrum are pretty good too.

provoter
Reply to  Resourceguy
March 17, 2016 6:38 pm

(Warning: extended rant to follow.)
Precisely, Resourceguy. And because no scientifically honest analysis of long-term data is on their side, of necessity they resort to the circular arguments: “1) It is a bit warmer now (deem we, after serial hyper-convenient, activist-produced, made-below-the-radar adjustments) than it was a bit ago. Nothing can make temperatures meaningfully warmer (deem we) apart from an increase in greenhouse gases. Ergo, the only reason it is warmer now than a bit ago can only be due primarily to an increase in greenhouse gases. 2) All or nearly all of the modern increase in greenhouse gases is (deem we) anthropogenic. Ergo, the anomalously warm (cf. above) temperatures of today are primarily caused by man’s economy-and-environment-destroying production of greenhouse gases. 3) Man is producing greenhouse gases at an ever-increasing rate. Ergo, temperatures will continue to rise at an ever-increasing rate until – sooner not later – most or all of mankind, and perhaps all life on earth itself, is doomed. 4) And if only you will be so kind as to refuse to observe Earth’s multi-billion- (or even multi-thousand-) year climate history with anything like a scientifically honest mindset, and just take our word for whatever end-of-days claims with which we bombard you incessantly, and not be at all concerned with our default refusal to back up any of our claims – ever – with the data necessary for anyone anywhere to reproduce our results, then you too may walk among our legions of Western democratic useful idiots. Congratulations – you’re now somebody.
“PS: All who profess disagreement with any of this only do so after being paid fabulous, soul-corrupting riches by fossil fuel mega corporations, and are evil incarnate, and torture puppies mercilessly at every opportunity. Including your own – probably tonight.
“PPS: None of us is motivated by anything other than the most pure and noble and painfully selfless of urges humanly possible. We are congenitally incapable of acting from self-interest of any sort, up to and including the need to breathe (a thing we do only for others).
“PPPS: Manicheaism is what the other side does – never us – and is a certain sign of pure evil.”
Caricature? Clearly. Off the mark? Judge for yourself.

March 17, 2016 10:46 am

Anthony, use this link instead:
TSI-SORCE-Cycle-24.png
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-Cycle-24.png

March 17, 2016 10:47 am

The above SSN graph is in the new corrected ‘Svalgaard SSN’, if anyone interested graph with the standard not corrected SSN count can be found here (inset at the bottom right)

Reply to  vukcevic
March 17, 2016 10:49 am

the standard
The old count is no longer the ‘standard’ and should not be used anymore.
The official standard is at http://www.sidc.be/silso/home

Reply to  vukcevic
March 17, 2016 10:54 am

Vuk, it’s NOT the “Svalgaard SSN” but the official one. Leif and others wrote some papers about the new (Waldmeier- bias corrected) counting. It’s no use to ignore it.

Reply to  frankclimate
March 17, 2016 11:10 am

Dr. Svalgaard did all the work, and it is only right that he should be given the credit.
‘International sunspot number’ was better known as ‘the Wolf number’ so why not carry with the existing naming tradition if not with the old numbers.

Reply to  frankclimate
March 17, 2016 11:17 am

Credit goes to the SSN Workshops, not to any one person:
http://www.leif.org/research/Revision-of-the-Sunspot-Number.pdf

Reply to  frankclimate
March 17, 2016 11:44 am

Doc
The path of scientific advance is built on the reasoning of an individual not by some kind of workshops or committees.

Reply to  vukcevic
March 17, 2016 12:12 pm

A workshop is where experts get together and examine the evidence and sometimes resolve known problems leading to progress in science.
Also helps to weed out failures of individuals, like this failure:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failure-34.png

Reply to  frankclimate
March 17, 2016 1:07 pm

Thanks Doc
Formula is correct for
1. 1620s peak
2. Maunder minimum
3. 1720s peak
4. Dalton minimum
5. 1850s peak
6. 1900s minimum
7. Grand Maximum
Formula is not correct for:
1. 1770s peak
That is 7 to 1 ratio, 7/8 correlation or correct in 78.5% cases.
I think that is a statistically significant result.
How about revisiting 1770’s sunspot numbers, there is a strong possibility that those could be wrong.
Eye balling your graph, It looks that the SS ‘enumerators’ copied the 20th century SSN into the 18th.
Now if you adjust the 18th century to fit my formula it will look more like the 19th century.
There is a good reason why your 18th c numbers could be wrong.
Solar activity is major component of global climate change. We know that the European climate records show that in the 18th and 19th centuries climate was very similar, and nowhere as warm as in the 20th century.
Conclusion: Sunspot numbers (Wolf and Svalgaard) for the second half of 18th century are from now on overcast by large degree of doubt.

Reply to  frankclimate
March 17, 2016 1:22 pm

typo, it should be:
That is 7 to 1 ratio, 7/8 correlation or correct in 87.5% cases

Reply to  frankclimate
March 17, 2016 1:28 pm

Sure, when your formula is a failure, blame the data.
A failure is a failure.

Editor
Reply to  frankclimate
March 17, 2016 4:37 pm

Perhaps we should consider the SSN Workshops as “peer review before the paper.”

Greg
Reply to  frankclimate
March 17, 2016 8:02 pm

That’s good one Vuk’, spoken like a true climatologist. Use patchy temperature data as a ‘proxy’ for SSN , then “correct” the SSN data to make it fit the hypothesis.
Once you have done that you will have a proof that SSN causes changes in temperature.
Nice work, Tom Karl would be proud of you.

Reply to  frankclimate
March 18, 2016 3:47 am

Mr. Werme
I appreciate your sense of humour.
Greg
It is the post-normal science. If I can’t beat them, they won’t let me join them, at least I can use their methods. Past data just like history are endlessly adjusted.

Reply to  frankclimate
March 18, 2016 4:24 am

Greg
Perhaps this graph suggests that neither data can be taken for granted.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-GSN2.gif
(ps, the ‘quoted comment’ is still hovering somewhere in a virtual buffer)

Peter Sable
Reply to  vukcevic
March 17, 2016 6:18 pm

I knew this thread was going to be entertaining, and it was.

Reply to  Peter Sable
March 18, 2016 3:33 am

Mr. Sable
a) never take yourself seriously and
b) be wary of advice from experts and politicians..

March 17, 2016 10:48 am

I’m not quite sure if SSN is ramping up in relation to the cycles of the past and an average of it’s activity. According to http://www.solen.info/solar/index.html the SSN for yesterday was 53, the monthly average for this month ( Nr. 88 of the cycle) is about 82. Anyway, we should wait to the end of the month to declare:”ramping up”.

Javier
March 17, 2016 10:59 am

We are in a period of reduced warming (El Niño allowing) in part due to low solar activity. This period could last into the 2030s and be composed by 2-3 solar cycles of reduced sunspot numbers.
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/Scafetta2_zpsbifsggxh.png
As the millennial activity cycle reaches a maximum, global warming can be expected to end in the 21st century naturally. Maximal temperatures for this millennial cycle should be observed before 2070.
As atmospheric CO2 is not expected to go down any time soon, this period of reduced solar activity is a good opportunity to elucidate the effect of multidecadal reduced solar activity on temperatures.

March 17, 2016 11:05 am

Javier, did you try to calculate the correlation between your “red record” and the observations? IMO it’s very weak ( see Maunder-Min) … If so you can’t make any prediction I’m afraid.

Javier
Reply to  frankclimate
March 17, 2016 11:19 am

Frankclimate,
There are too few cycles to get any statistics. But the millennial and de Vries cycles are very well known in the literature and present in paleo-records from proxies. It is possible that the de Vries cycle is produced by the collapse of the second peak of the even waves (1650-1700 and 1870-1910). Otherwise there would not be a de Vries cycle to be recognized. We will know if by 2050-2080 we get another collapse and another cool period. No point in being impatient with the Sun.

Reply to  frankclimate
March 17, 2016 11:28 am

Comparison of the old and new numbers, with correlation of the formula to the new numbers, which as it happens has a closer match than with the old Wolf numbers .
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-O&N.gif

Reply to  vukcevic
March 17, 2016 11:34 am

Regardless, your ‘fits’ are just numerology with no physical basis.

Reply to  vukcevic
March 17, 2016 12:18 pm

Vuk’s formula is “Eurequa formulize” result? It fit’s everything!! The solar dynamo is in “Cos” or in what??

Reply to  vukcevic
March 17, 2016 12:29 pm

And there is a certain amount of dishonesty in not showing the whole record:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failure-34.png
As the ‘formula’ is ambiguous, I have used my interpretation of it.

Reply to  vukcevic
March 17, 2016 1:13 pm

As I said above
Formula is correct
1. 1620’s peak
2. Maunder minimum
3. 1720’s peak
4. Dalton minimum
5. 1850s peak
6. 1900’s minimum
7. Grand Maximum
Formula apparently is not correct
1. 1770’s peak
That is 7 to 1 ratio, 7/8 correlation or correct in 78.5% cases.
I think that is a statistically significant result.
How about revisiting 1770’s sunspot numbers, there is a strong possibility that those could be wrong.
Eye balling your graph, It looks that the SS ‘enumerators’ copied the 20th century SSN into the 18th.
Now if you adjust the 18th century to fit my formula it will look more like the 19th century.
There is a good reason why your 18th c numbers could be wrong.
Solar activity is major component of global climate change. We know that the European climate records show that in the 18th and 19th centuries climate was very similar, and nowhere as warm as in the 20th century.
Conclusion: Sunspot numbers (Wolf and Svalgaard) for the second half of 18th century are from now on overcast by large degree of doubt.

Reply to  vukcevic
March 17, 2016 1:20 pm

correction
That is 7 to 1 ratio, 7/8 correlation or correct in 87.5% cases.

Reply to  vukcevic
March 17, 2016 1:49 pm

Eye balling your graph, It looks that the SS ‘enumerators’ copied the 20th century SSN into the 18th.
Now if you adjust the 18th century to fit my formula it will look more like the 19th century.

Sounds like something you might do. A Danish proverb comes to mind “a thief thinks everybody steals”. Shame on you.

Reply to  vukcevic
March 17, 2016 2:38 pm

Insults, those I do not answer, they are private property of the poster.

Reply to  vukcevic
March 17, 2016 6:04 pm

vukcevic March 17, 2016 at 2:38 pm
Insults, those I do not answer, they are private property of the poster.
It seems to me that the greater insult is to suggest that “the SS ‘enumerators’ copied the 20th century SSN into the 18th.” But, hey, what else can one expect from you?

Reply to  vukcevic
March 19, 2016 2:58 am

“Vuk Formula Failure” graph, as shown by Dr. Svalgaard, actually demonstrates (to anybody with eyes connected to brain) that Vukcevic’s hypothesis doesn’t fail at all. It is much more probable that the temperature data from the end of 18th century is too incomplete to be given much importance. Of course, all kinds of “coincidences” are possible, but on this scale? Unlikely.

Pop Piasa
March 17, 2016 11:06 am

Slightly OT, but the latest filament eruption on the west limb was sharable in my opinion:
A C2.2 Hyder flare but still way bigger than us.

Johanus
March 17, 2016 12:14 pm

@WUWT
> … sunspots are starting to pick up again …
> … This of course is just a _minor_ blip, as the trend is downward …
If past solar cycles can be used as a guide, then don’t be surprised if a ‘major’ blip occurs in the next few months, even as SC24 begins to ramp down its operations.
http://i66.tinypic.com/2e4aeci.png
You can see from the solar flux charts, that virtually all of the solar cycles since the 1940’s have had such a reprise, typically kicking in after the solar flux dipped below 100sfu, manifested by blipping briefly upward 25sfu or higher.
Except SC23, where we see instead a pétarade of minor blips along the entire down-ramp.

RWturner
March 17, 2016 12:17 pm

Does it appear that the tail of this cycle will be skewed, similar to the previous cycle?

ShrNfr
March 17, 2016 12:34 pm

The cosmic ray counts continue to grind higher. http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif

Reply to  ShrNfr
March 17, 2016 12:37 pm

As it always does when solar activity is falling…

March 17, 2016 2:13 pm

Data is as good as the records on which they are based, but it has been corrected number of times in the past.
Corrections based on the data, not on wanting to match a ‘formula’.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 17, 2016 3:07 pm

Now, that is odd.
You are quoting from my comment that has not appeared as yet. Just in case I just checked with 4 different browsers, IE, Chrome and Opera on desktop and android on a tablet

Tiburon
Reply to  vukcevic
March 17, 2016 7:09 pm

Wow Vukcevic! Apparently accurate! Indeed, VERY odd. Hmmm.
Inquiring minds (or Suspicious Observers) want to know…

Reply to  Tiburon
March 17, 2016 7:12 pm

It seems that Vuk is just behind the curve…

Greg
Reply to  vukcevic
March 17, 2016 8:10 pm

“Just in case I just checked with 4 different browsers, IE, Chrome and Opera on desktop and android on a tablet”
Someone is buffering you internet access.

Reply to  Greg
March 17, 2016 8:13 pm

It is very simple. If you subscribe to the comments, you get them about a minute before they post to the blog.

March 17, 2016 3:06 pm
ulriclyons
March 17, 2016 3:34 pm

I think I see a larger “blip” early in Feb than the one in March:
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/solar.png

Greg
Reply to  ulriclyons
March 17, 2016 8:26 pm

Bear in mind that what is detectable in classic SSN observations is a view from one side of photosphere that has a period of about 27.4 days. As features approach the solar horizon or the poles they are less detectable and will be under counted.
This observational defect will introduce a periodic repetition into the SSN data.
It is interesting that this period is very close to the lunar sidereal month of 27.32 days.
Perhpas the lunar orbit is synchronised to the same forces which stimulate surface solar disturbances.

Reply to  Greg
March 18, 2016 6:19 am

There is more to it. Sun is magnetically lopsided
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/nSSLong.gif
Moon is continuously bombarded by solar particles, but once every solar rotation impact is much stronger, and once every lunar month moon is sheltered by the Earth’s magnetosphere. This implies two short extremes (max & min) of the effect, which although it is very, very small, after a billion or two of years synchronisation might take place.

Reply to  vukcevic
March 18, 2016 7:18 am

This implies two short extremes (max & min) of the effect, which although it is very, very small, after a billion or two of years synchronisation might take place
Except that the length of the lunar month changes with time [getting longer] so there is no synchronization.

Larry
March 17, 2016 5:04 pm

What about the solar X-ray flux? Low C solar flares are about all that have been fired off towards earth, but after those spots turn toward the back side of the Sun, they pop bigger flares.

March 17, 2016 5:53 pm

Anthony, Can you add http://www.solen.info/solar/ to the solar page at wuwt? Their daily Solarchart should be see by everyone.
I have been using it for years, great chart

barry
March 17, 2016 6:12 pm

Updating the sunspot plot has removed the option to embiggen it. But you can click for enlargement in Leif’s post above.

Carla
March 17, 2016 6:18 pm

Michele
March 17, 2016 at 3:06 pm
The flux transport (north) is very slow…
—————————————————————————————————————————————–
The “positive” flux transport has been slower and lower in strength, since ? before 2010.
The “positive” flux appears to get cancelled out, by a much hardier stronger persistent “negative” flux.
Or for the sake of W. Astley, the positive flux transport northward keeps getting interrupted by negative flux and cancelling out.
More negative flux than positive, why would this be?
Is positive outward and negative inward or am I backwards again?

Bob Weber
March 17, 2016 7:46 pm

Solar radio flux, F10.7cm, tracks with sunspot number. The 90 day average for F10.7 solar flux as of today is 104 sfu/day, close to the monthly averages for January and February this year of 103.6 and 103.7.
Today’s F10.7 observed flux at 22hr was 92 sfu, and it has only averaged 94 over the last 27 days of solar rotation, when the GOES x-ray flux only managed a low background level of B1.5 per day.
The sun is slightly less active this month than the “low” F10.7cm flux prediction range for March from the Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) panel monthly F10.7cm forecast http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/text/predicted-sunspot-radio-flux.txt of 97.4 sfu/day.
The US Air Force F10.7cm and Ap 45 day forecast, which is updated daily based on new solar data every day, http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/text/45-day-ap-forecast.txt, has today’s 45day F10.7cm average at 93.7 sfu/day. March is on track with this F10.7cm forecast to end at 94.0 sfu/day.
From ftp://ftp.swpc.noaa.gov/pub/indices/quar_DSD.txt, this month’s NOAA sunspot number daily average so far is 57.8 per day, up from Feb at 56, and Jan at 50.5. The SWPC “high” sunspot prediction for March is 47.6.
So by month’s end we could see the odd combination of the sun having a higher than the “high” average sunspot number SWPC prediction at the same time it has a lower than the “low” SWPC F10.7cm solar flux monthly prediction!
SORCE TSI has been remarkably stable since Dec 1 2015, averaging 1361.2886. The 90 day average is 1361.2861, shown below. 2016 is at 1361.3045, and March TSI so far is at 1361.3503 as of 3/10, up from Feb at 1361.3051.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_3month_640x480.png
So aside from a slight uptick in average sunspot number and TSI, the sun has been pretty quiet so far this month.
The SWPC panel is calling for solar minimum conditions by possibly as soon as the end of 2018. Will it really happen that fast? It ‘could’ drag out a few more years beyond that, as other low activity cycles have lasted longer. Since SC24 started in 2008.9*, 13 years out places the minimum in 2021.
We’ll see.
*http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/sunspot-numbers/cycle-data/table_cycle-dates_maximum-minimum.txt

Bob Weber
Reply to  Bob Weber
March 17, 2016 7:47 pm

“Solar radio flux, F10.7cm, tracks with sunspot number.” – over solar cycle lengths, not always daily/monthly.

Bob Weber
March 17, 2016 8:47 pm

Who wants to take a lovely vacation in Croatia and attend this conference on electric currents in geospace, http://chapman.agu.org/spacecurrents/general-informationabout-conference/, and report back?
http://chapman.agu.org/spacecurrents/files/2012/08/Chapman-Dubrovnik-Poster_NEW_10-22.jpg

Reply to  Bob Weber
March 17, 2016 9:04 pm

It has been known for a hundred years that all interesting things in Geospace are caused by electric currents as they short out the electric fields generated by the conducting solar wind plasma moving into the Earth’s magnetic field.
P.S. It is satisfying to see that the poster uses my sketch of the heliospheric current sheet [sexed up by NASA artist Werner Heil] http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/HCS.html
http://www.leif.org/research/HCS-Comparison.png
based on http://www.leif.org/research/HCS-Nature-1976.pdf

Bob Weber
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 17, 2016 9:14 pm

If you’re volunteering to attend the conference, I’m looking forward to your report 😉

Reply to  Bob Weber
March 17, 2016 9:24 pm

Unfortunately, I’ll be in Switzerland digitizing sunspot drawings…
My report would take this form: http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf
We are now dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s of understanding reached almost half a century ago and beyond, and as the poster says “Electric currents are fundamental to the structure and dynamics of space plasmas, including our own near-Earth space environment (also called “geospace”). This recognition is one of the great achievements in space research, going back to the beginning of the last century.”

Reply to  Bob Weber
March 18, 2016 2:34 am

Bob
I’m sure you’ll enjoy conference and even more the location. Dubrovnik and surrounding area are exceptional, day trip few miles down the coast to Montenegro is also highly recommended.

Bob Weber
Reply to  vukcevic
March 18, 2016 6:58 am

Yes Vuk, I would enjoy it, if I were going.

Bob Weber
March 17, 2016 11:19 pm

I’ve never seen F10.7 drop like this in one day – it just dropped from 91.6 to 66.7 sfu in three hours!
20160317 170000 2457465.197 2175.053 0091.8 0090.9 0081.8
20160317 200000 2457465.322 2175.057 0091.6 0090.7 0081.6
20160317 230000 2457465.447 2175.062 0066.7 0066.1 0059.5
ftp://ftp.geolab.nrcan.gc.ca/data/solar_flux/daily_flux_values/fluxtable.txt
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/f_211_193_171_1024.jpg
http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/beacon/latest/ahead_euvi_195_latest.jpg

Reply to  Bob Weber
March 17, 2016 11:25 pm

Very likely just a data problem.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 18, 2016 11:51 am

Yes, just a data problem:
20160317 200000 2457465.322 2175.057 0091.6 0090.7 0081.6
20160317 230000 2457465.447 2175.062 0066.7 0066.1 0059.5
20160318 170000 2457466.197 2175.089 0091.1 0090.2 0081.2

Richard111
March 18, 2016 12:07 am

Does total sunspot area have any effect on IR?
Not seen sunspots as big as this lately.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/hotshots/2000_09_22/mdi_igrm.gif

Bob Weber
Reply to  Richard111
March 18, 2016 8:59 am

You picked a good example. The sun on 9/22/00 had a SSN of 248, SF of 232, SSA (area) of 2770. PMOD TSI fell from 1362.565 on 9/8 until it bottomed out on the 22nd at 1359.254, then it shot back up again by the 28th, over 19 days. It’s a fairly common occurrence that TSI drops sharply whenever sunspot number and sunspot area quickly grows larger, and then rebounds after the main groups rotate off limb. Your example was exceeded in magnitude by the following from 2003 that lasted 17 days:
“The passage of two large sunspot groups in late October 2003 caused a decrease in TSI larger than any short-term decrease in the 36-year TSI composite. ” – http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_Oct2003.png
ftp://ftp.swpc.noaa.gov/pub/indices/old_indices/2000_DSD.txt
ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data/irradiance/composite/DataPlots/composite_42_64_1512.dat

March 18, 2016 2:12 am

http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SGN1.gif
The sun has nothing to do with climate change, or the late 1700s numbers are wrong.
I’m inclined to think that the late 1700s numbers are wrong

March 18, 2016 4:36 am

The sun has nothing to do with climate change
Finally you are saying something that makes sense. Indeed, the sun is not a major driver of climate. As to the sunspot number during the 18th century you might consult http://www.leif.org/research/The-Waldmeier-Effect.pdf

Hugo L.
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 18, 2016 6:45 am

The fire
warming the planet
has nothing to do
with warming the planet.

lsvalgaard
March 18, 2016 at 4:36 am
The sun has nothing to do with climate change
Finally you are saying something that makes sense. Indeed, the sun is not a major driver of climate. As to the sunspot number during the 18th century you might consult http://www.leif.org/research/The-Waldmeier-Effect.pdf

You really can’t make this kind of thing up. A grown adult human being assumedly with a drivers’ license and often dressing and grooming himself, just told me the fire warming a rock, has nothing to do with warming the rock.
This sounds like it comes straight out of Hansen/Mann country. .

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Hugo L.
March 18, 2016 4:42 pm

You are misunderstanding the idea that the tiny CHANGES in TSI are not a major driver of CHANGES in climate. It is the changes that Dr S is addressing.

Bob Weber
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 18, 2016 7:04 am

The idea that the sun isn’t the major driver of climate is factually wrong, but you are entitled to ‘believe’ what you wish.

Bob Weber
Reply to  Bob Weber
March 18, 2016 7:13 am

When I say ‘the sun’ I mean solar insolation within the Milankovitch framework, itself a variation in insolation.
Solar insolation changes drive ‘climate change’.

Reply to  Bob Weber
March 18, 2016 7:16 am

I was at first inclined to agree with you Bob, but then I remembered that Climate and Weather are two different things. The problem is the use of the word Climate applied globally. Earth has many climate regimes which are determined by nearly innumerable multiple factors. But the sun does drive the weather, there is no doubt of that.

Reply to  Bob Weber
March 18, 2016 7:28 am

spoken as a true believer….

Bob Weber
Reply to  Bob Weber
March 18, 2016 8:00 am

lectrikdog, climate change is ultimately the cumulative effect of daily weather changes over any arbitrarily defined time period. If the sun changes the weather every day as you and I think it does, then yesterday and today’s solar-driven weather stats ultimately will add to some change in the future state of the climate.

Reply to  Bob Weber
March 18, 2016 8:36 am

You have to be more precise. Solar insolation changes from day to night, from summer to winter, from Milankovitch cycle to M cycle. The issue is whether solar magnetic activity is a major driver of climate and there is very scant [if any] evidence of that as Vuk has just realized.

Reply to  Bob Weber
March 18, 2016 8:20 am

My point, Bob, is that when it comes to Earth as a whole there is no ‘the Climate’. If you asked an eskimo to describe earth’s climate, you’d get an entirely different answer than say, from a Tahitian. How can one define Earth’s overall climate? By averaging everything out? Is there really an ‘earth’s overall climate?’ I don’t think so. Maybe I am just splitting hairs, but this is one thing that is wrong when people talk about “climate change”. Climate can refer to fairly large areas, (latitudes and altitudes) as well as very small areas(forest canopies/climate near the ground, etc). But can it refer to the earth globally?

Bob Weber
Reply to  Bob Weber
March 18, 2016 9:08 am

You make goods points electrikdog.
Leif, I will show you how the solar magnetic fields are directly responsible for weather and climate change in my solar supersensitivity-accumulation report. Until then, you and Vuk can carry on “believing” solar variability doesn’t matter.

Reply to  Bob Weber
March 18, 2016 9:28 am

Bob, Dr. S is master of selective ‘miss-quotation’
What I said is:
“The sun has nothing to do with climate change, or the late 1700s numbers are wrong.
I’m inclined to think that the late 1700s numbers are wrong”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/17/cycle-24-solar-activity-slowly-ramping-up/comment-page-1/#comment-2168769

Reply to  vukcevic
March 18, 2016 9:34 am

The sun has nothing to do with climate change, or the late 1700s numbers are wrong
As the data clearly shows, the 1700s numbers are correct [as verified by the Waldmeier Effect, Geomagnetic Response, and Cosmic Ray record], you are left with the first assumption. So you have shown that the sun has nothing to do with climate change, although you may not believe it. That you don’t believe it does not invalidate what you found.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Bob Weber
March 18, 2016 9:37 am

Do the math. Work backwards in terms of clear sky solar insolation’s capacity (the extrinsic factor) to warm a column of ocean water 1 degree C. Then use known cloudy conditions (the intrinsic factor) to give you an insolation range. The capacity of solar change (in W/m2), a known value as measured from peak to trough within a solar cycle, is a buried blip too small to show up on any typical measuring device of ocean heat. The intrinsic noise of Earth’s atmosphere rules.

Reply to  Bob Weber
March 18, 2016 9:38 am

Bob Weber March 18, 2016 at 7:13 am
When I say ‘the sun’ I mean solar insolation within the Milankovitch framework, itself a variation in insolation.

So you mean the Earth’s orbit variability not solar variability.

Bob Weber
Reply to  Bob Weber
March 18, 2016 10:28 am

Phil there’s two parts to that, the long-term orbital insolation changes Milankovitch found, and the short-term solar variations over decades, down to monthly-weekly-daily changes. My research focus and the intent of my message today is on the short-term variations for which we have enormous amounts of data, over the period mainly since 1880, the starting point for the alleged man-made climate calamity. I do go back to the pre-Dalton era as there is temperature data going back to 1753, from http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Complete_TAVG_summary.txt, and annual SSNs from WDC-SILSO.
I’ll also respond to Pamela here too. When you see for yourself how sensitive the earth’s weather is to variations in TSI that occur even over one week, and the type of weather that follows, and how regularly and predictably that pattern repeats, you’ll realize those small wee changes do matter – they make all the difference, because those blips are really tangible pulses of energy that do have immediate and temporary tangible effects that are visible in various weather and climate image products and numerical indices.
People will doubt the sun can make long-term changes to the climate if it can’t be demonstrated that even short-term TSI changes make a difference to weather or climate change. I will demonstrate that in my report. There’s too many graphics and too much explaining to do, to do it justice in the comments section without it. The problem is today there are no annual TSI graphics images available on the net to pull up and show with other things along with it, so I’m making my own.
The growth in TSI up to the highest annual TSI since late 2002, since the minimum in 2008, caused recent warm temperatures in 2015. From http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt
Year 1au TSI
2015 1361.4321
2014 1361.3966
2013 1361.3587
2016 1361.3064
2012 1361.2413
2011 1361.0752
2003 1361.0292
2004 1360.9192
2010 1360.8027
2005 1360.7518
2006 1360.6735
2007 1360.5710
2009 1360.5565
2008 1360.5382
There hasn’t been one challenge to this statement yet in three months.

Reply to  Bob Weber
March 18, 2016 11:03 am

There hasn’t been one challenge to this statement yet
There is evidence that the usual relationship between TSI and the Sunspot number no longer holds: http://www.leif.org/research/New-Group-Number-and-TSI.pdf
Recent research has confirmed the problem:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-Divergence.png
TSI records [filled symbols] and other solar activity indices [open symbols] have been normalized to Cycle 23 values, but diverge in Cycle 24. We are pretty sure that the TSI records are not the problem. Perhaps the Livingston-Penn effect is beginning to show.
Now, to think that this is the cause of Global Warming [or the Pause or ENSO or whatever] is just silly. The climate does change from day to day or from year to year. And in any case TSI is still down from Cycle 23 levels.

Reply to  Bob Weber
March 18, 2016 11:05 am

The climate does NOT change …

Bob Weber
Reply to  Bob Weber
March 18, 2016 11:22 am

Right, the climate really hasn’t changed that much in a few hundred years at a large scale. The temperature anomaly isn’t all that great in magnitude either, certainly not alarming. Most importantly, heat accumulates when the sun is hot enough long enough, as it was post 1979. It won’t be alarming either if the process goes in reverse and temps drop for a decade, as they did through SC20.

Reply to  Bob Weber
March 18, 2016 11:26 am

heat accumulates when the sun is hot enough long enough, as it was post 1979
And post 1750, post 1835, and post 1940…

Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 18, 2016 10:15 am

“That you don’t believe it does not invalidate what you found.”
Dr. S.
I do not and have no intention of believing in any of the discussed.
I look at various data, some time I think what I found in the data makes sense within the framework of natural events as far as I understand them. Sometime what I find in the data contradicts that framework of natural events, in such case I consider that data rather than the nature is erroneous.
Believing into things or events is simply inferior mental activity to the process of evolving thought.

Reply to  vukcevic
March 18, 2016 10:48 am

I do not and have no intention of believing in any of the discussed
Willful ignorance is the gravest of sins.

Reply to  vukcevic
March 18, 2016 11:07 am

makes sense within the framework of natural events as far as I understand them. Sometime what I find in the data contradicts that framework of natural events, in such case I consider that data rather than the nature is erroneous.
It is MUCH more likely that it is your ‘understanding’ that is at fault.

Reply to  vukcevic
March 18, 2016 11:18 am

I say
Glory Glory, Hallelujah Man
https://youtu.be/yTwJvVTQ6-0

Reply to  vukcevic
March 18, 2016 11:40 am

Meaningless comment. Perhaps you should try to pollute WUWT a bit less…

Reply to  vukcevic
March 18, 2016 1:59 pm

It was answer to your outburst of preaching
“Willful ignorance is the gravest of sins”
I say again Hallelujah, but it is better to keep religion out of science.

Reply to  vukcevic
March 18, 2016 2:02 pm

Since this is not a science discussion, your religion could be acceptable.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 19, 2016 3:08 am

“Indeed, the sun is not a major driver of climate.”
Repeating a dogmatic statement 1000 times doesn’t make it more convincing.

AJB
March 18, 2016 4:51 am

Like frankclimate above, can’t say I see any meaningful uptick in the numbers …
1. SSN V2 (includes estimated March to date)
2. F10.7 (to yesterday)
But evolution still very asymmetric with North lagging
3. SSN V2 North/South
4. PSF Asymmetry Quotient
Perhaps getting somewhat late for North to catch up but it could surprise us yet. Seemingly not much flux coming up the way at present to even things out though.
5. PSF v Mag Butterfly
6. PSF Evolution (max-tilt, north not showing anything arriving soon)
So, if you’re into solar guessing games (beats TV game shows for entertainment anyway), where’s the minimum likely to fall and what of Cycle 25? Dipole moment looking like it may be a tad under the precursor for 24 but there’s the asymmetry to consider. If it persists, could that affect Cycle 25’s SSN outcome such that the PSF precursor relation requires modification? What does dynamo theory suggest would happen with one weak and one strong pole given the alleged Maunder asymmetry?
Here’s the composites for completeness:
7. Cycle 21-24
8. Cycle 24 (ten day resampled for consistency)
My SWAG back in Aug 2015 (old SSN based) is already off; decline too rapid although the first wiggle seems to be falling into place. Down a bit, a flat spot and slight uptick next? Maybe North will catch up, maybe not. Only time will tell.

Reply to  AJB
March 19, 2016 7:48 am

In this article: http://notrickszone.com/2016/03/16/record-low-solar-dynamo-asymmetry-may-be-indicate-weak-upcoming-solar-cycle-25-new-solar-minimum/#sthash.MdIDv2Ny.dpbs the authors made some thoughts also about the SPF-differences which were south dominated through the (almost, not during zero-crossing in 2013) whole SC24. In the fig. 4 one can see: the greatest difference since the start of observations.

AJB
March 18, 2016 7:29 am

Links missing for composites, try again …
7. Cycle 21-24
8. Cycle 24 (ten day resampled for consistency)

Bob Weber
March 18, 2016 11:38 am

This is a daily example of our earth’s solar supersensitivity (when using same date for UV & TWC maps).
Both the highest heat and current temps indicated below happen where the daily UV index is highest, almost invariably, so long as I’ve monitored it, when the sun’s ray’s pass over each place at local noon:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/uv_index/uvi_map.gif
http://i.imwx.com/images/maps/current/actheat_600x405.jpg
http://i.imwx.com/images/maps/current/acttemp_600x405.jpg

Reply to  Bob Weber
March 18, 2016 11:43 am

Yeah, it is usually hottest near noon [or a bit thereafter]. Certainly, it is cooler at night when the UV flux is zero, so, indeed the temperature is hypersensitive to the UV flux…

Bob Weber
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 18, 2016 12:06 pm

is that a joke! very funny! LOL
I forgot to mention the UV index also varies with cloud cover too. The specific point about the UV index is it varies with solar activity too, so the variation in daily maximum UV at any given location isn’t just a function of the normal daily change in insolation as the season progresses or cloud cover.

Reply to  Bob Weber
March 18, 2016 12:12 pm

the UV index is it varies with solar activity too
The variation is too minute to measure. The UV that varies measurably is absorbed in the upper atmosphere and does not show up in the UV index. If you think it does, produce a plot of UV index [anywhere will do] at noon over the past many years. If you don’t or can’t, your claim is void.

Bob Weber
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 18, 2016 1:29 pm

We know UV varies with the solar cycle.
“Solar Cycle Dependence of Solar UV Irradiance”, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMGC31B0344F
“Abstract
For the past 30 years during solar cycles 21, 22, and 23, the solar ultraviolet (UV) spectral irradiance has been measured by a series of several long-term space-based experiments, including the NOAA SBUV/SBUV2 series, the UARS experiments (SOLSTICE and SUSIM), and the instruments aboard SORCE. Accurate, absolutely calibrated spectral irradiances can be difficult to obtain from these daily measurements because the changing optical characteristics of measuring instruments are often uncertain, especially over the long-term. Accordingly, the resulting UV irradiance data can sometimes contain unwanted instrumental trends. These solar UV irradiance time series are dominated by two periodicities: solar rotation (~27 days) and solar activity (~11 years). They have also been shown to correlate very well with indices of solar activity, particularly the Mg~II core-to-wing ratio. The relative variation of the solar UV ranges from nearly a factor of two at Ly-α, about 10% at 200nm, to less than 1% above 320 nm. For the long wavelength portion of the UV spectrum, above about 263~nm, the long-term accuracy is typically comparable to the solar cycle variation. However, because the level of UV irradiance increases strongly with wavelength, most of the variation in total UV irradiance is provided by wavelengths above 250~nm. Using the latest versions of the various solar UV irradiance time series, the level of agreement of the relative changes of the various data sets is examined. From this, an assessment may be made as to the accuracy of the irradiances which is compared with the reported uncertainties. Using the correspondence with the solar Mg~II index, the solar cycle variation based on the available maximum to minimum or minimum to maximum transitions is analyzed to reveal differences among the three solar cycles.”
The main point was the highest US daily temperatures are located where the UVI is highest daily, which changes location daily, usually not by much day to day. That’s insolation at work.

Reply to  Bob Weber
March 18, 2016 1:37 pm

We know UV varies with the solar cycle.
For the UV that reaches the ground and is measured by the UV index, the variation is only of the order of one percent so is completely unmeasurable in the UV-index.
The main point was the highest US daily temperatures are located where the UVI is highest daily
in the early afternoon on clear days. Has nothing to do with solar activity.

dan (no longer) in california
March 18, 2016 6:19 pm

Have there been any recent or quantitative studies linking the sunspot number and the deflection of cosmic rays that create condensation trails that add to cloud cover? I’ve seen discussions on this, but nothing much beyond generic statements that “this must be the mechanism for affecting climate.”

Reply to  dan (no longer) in california
March 18, 2016 8:39 pm

http://www.leif.org/EOS/Clouds-GCR-Temps-Palle.pdf
http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-GCR-Clouds.pdf
“it is clear that there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and cloud cover”

dan (no longer) in california
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 18, 2016 8:51 pm

Thank you

Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 19, 2016 3:15 am

Quoting yourself and showing your own graphs?
Some evidence.

gopher
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 19, 2016 7:46 am

@Alexander Feht
I know right!….Isn’t it ridiculous when experts comment on the subject that they are experts in?

John Finn
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 19, 2016 8:30 am

Alexander Feht March 19, 2016 at 3:15 am

Quoting yourself and showing your own graphs?
Some evidence.

You clearly haven’t looked at the links.

March 19, 2016 10:42 am

Let me give you a clue: Earth is not a lifeless rock.
Unless you can come up with a mathematical definition of biosphere’s resonant responses to those changes of solar activity “on the scale of 1%,” you cannot dismiss them out of hand.
No, I haven’t looked at links. I know that there are scientists who agree with Svensmark.
I also know that data can be twisted to conform a dogmatic willful ignorance.

March 19, 2016 11:39 am

@gopher
Hansen and Mann are also experts.
German experts recently experimentally established (this is not a joke) that dogs may have emotions.
To convince me that changes in solar activities do not have any significant effect on Earth, one has to do much, much better than our learned Aryan friend from Janteloven realm.

Reply to  Alexander Feht
March 19, 2016 11:51 am

To convince me that changes in solar activities do not have any significant effect on Earth
They do, a lot actually: geomagnetic storms, aurorae, ionospheric disturbances, power net failures, radio communication outages, etc, etc.
Except that none of this has any measurable effect on the Climate, so you will have to do a lot better to buttress your belief that they do. Please help out here, as that will vastly increase funding for my field.

March 19, 2016 11:59 am

Cycle 25 will likely be a repeat of Cycle 24 or at least not any smaller:
http://www.leif.org/research/Comparing-HMI-WSO-Polar-Fields.pdf
Based on Science and not on Astrology.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 19, 2016 1:18 pm

as the sun happened to be a star and you a solar scientist, your link is pure ‘aster logos’

Carla
March 19, 2016 5:10 pm

I wonder if the Interstellar Magnetic Field has an alternating Positive/Negative magnetic field and when that might switch around. Might take a hundred years who knows? Considering it gets all wrapped up around the helisopshere at differing angles and such. Might have an effect on the inward/outward solar component.
All this climate talk and no mention of Length of Day (LOD) effect on geomagnetic jerk times and their relationship to El Nino events. From what I can see on the graphs sited below, geomagnetic jerks line up quite nicely with El Nino events. Couldn’t get it exactly for the 97/98 Nino until further searches found an article that described a super geomagnetic jerk in 1998. hmm super…
Characterisation and implications of intradecadal variations
in length-of-day
R. Holme1 & O. de Viron2
https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/~holme/nature_sub.pdf
page 21
Figure S3: Expanded version of Figure 2 from main paper

Reply to  Carla
March 19, 2016 5:19 pm

Might have an effect on the inward/outward solar component.
No, because the solar wind is supersonic and keeps all magnetic fields and cosmic plasmas out of the solar system.

Carla
March 20, 2016 11:18 am

lsvalgaard March 19, 2016 at 5:19 pm
————————————————————-
Might have an effect on the inward/outward solar component.
————————————————————-
No, because the solar wind is supersonic and keeps all magnetic fields and cosmic plasmas out of the solar system.
————————————————————-
Upwind crescent, gravitational focusing cone, Dr. S.
We have an upwind crescent in our heliosphere, located at 1AU in Earths orbital regime. Observed toooooo, if I recall correctly.
The example in the image below is not of our astrosphere. But you can OBSERVE a CONE on the upwind side of this astrosphere coming directly from an are known as the “bowshock,” of this astrosphere. Looks like this solar disk has some pretty “supersonic winds,” toooooo!
http://ibex.swri.edu/img/bzcam_bow_shock.jpg

Reply to  Carla
March 20, 2016 11:25 am

That is caused by neutral particles penetrating, and has no influence on the magnetic field.
The bow shock simply shows that the interstellar gas does not penetrate. Instead it piles up outside the astrosphere. And outside our heliosphere too.

Carla
March 20, 2016 11:21 am

But you can OBSERVE a CONE on the upwind side of this astrosphere coming directly from an area known as the “bowshock,” of this astrosphere.
Pretty amazing dent too, I might add. How does the dent affect the pressure balance within? We have a dent in our heliosphere too.
Better go sit on a beach ball lol…..

Carla
March 20, 2016 11:30 am

Maybe the dent is relative to the asymetery of sunspots on this sun. Fewer sunspots in its southern hemisphere, so less outward pressure in the south. Or maybe not.

Reply to  Carla
March 20, 2016 11:54 am

The solar wind is a lot less asymmetric than the sun as plasma is guided towards the equator by the magnetic field: http://www.leif.org/research/A%20View%20of%20Solar%20Magnetic%20Fields,%20the%20Solar%20Corona,%20and%20the%20Solar%20Wind%20in%20Three%20Dimensions.pdf

Carla
March 20, 2016 11:39 am

Gotta admit, this solar cycle has been more fun for the lay persons like myself.

Carla
March 20, 2016 12:59 pm

Hypothetically, if the Interstellar Magnetic Field is helical, (like a spring) the solar orbit thru those helical fields would have a north to south component. Maybe creating a north to south asymmetric dent ‘period of time’ into an astrosphere caused by the magnetic pressure.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/01/images/helicalfield.jpg

Reply to  Carla
March 20, 2016 1:32 pm

These is no doubt that the solar magnetic field is outside the heliosphere connected to the interstellar field. but that has no influence on what happens inside the heliosphere.

Carla
March 20, 2016 1:07 pm

And, if you ask me, that big old dent creates a pressure IMbalance in the hemisphere that it (the dent) is located.
http://ibex.swri.edu/img/bzcam_bow_shock.jpg
Which might be why that visible incoming stream is offset.

Carla
March 20, 2016 1:34 pm

Going full circle with my circular rant for this solar cycle update.
Repeat….
Michele
March 17, 2016 at 3:06 pm
The flux transport (north) is very slow…
—————————————————————————————————————————————–
The “positive” flux transport has been slower and lower in strength, since ? before 2010.
The “positive” flux appears to get cancelled out, by a much hardier stronger persistent “negative” flux.
Or for the sake of W. Astley, the positive flux transport northward keeps getting interrupted by negative flux and cancelling out.
More negative flux than positive, why would this be?
Is positive outward and negative inward or am I backwards again?
Also, this lower strength positive polarity N. Pole? on our sun, is allowing the penetration of more galactic cosmic rays into the N. hemisphere of the sun and the heliosphere or solar system however you want it.
Higher energy cosmic rays that had been trapped by the Interstellar Magnetic Field, now untrapped due to the mangling of those fields by Ol Sol.

Reply to  Carla
March 20, 2016 1:41 pm

positive is out, negative is in.
There is an effect on cosmic rays by the polar fields. See slide 17 of http://www.leif.org/research/Synoptic-Observations.pdf
but is has no effect on solar activity. Nor on climate [effect much too small].

Carla
March 20, 2016 1:48 pm

Good Day Sunshine good video too..
https://youtu.be/plmnpVBszj4

Carla
March 20, 2016 5:15 pm

lsvalgaard March 20, 2016 at 1:41 pm
positive is out, negative is in
—————————————————————————————-
In the light of this solar cycle, that statement was really funny. lol
Thanks for the link DR. S., looks like another good one. Will check it out whilst I dine.
One more thingy, related to solar cycles, I think.
THE IERS BULLETIN C
AND THE PREDICTION OF LEAP SECONDS
Daniel Gambis*
http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/futureofutc/preprints/files/42_AAS%2013-522_Gambis.pdf
Figure 2. Composite LOD series 1840-2010
Graph in the pdf much better than the one below…
if it makes it
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT5mpbkDow6-h2oB20UjJjvapVyIfJbSePXJ5x0JimpfValdKkUWw

Andyj
March 22, 2016 3:25 am

Well after all this bickering I have a personal conundrum that literally says there is more to Sunlight than meets the eye.
Here in the North of the UK I have a SE facing vacuum tube hot water panel which in the summer still works like crazy in the evenings when it can see nothing but blue sky. Unlike in winters clear days.
This has nothing to do with temperature. A bright blue sky in winter can be hit or miss whether this panel pulls its weight.
Does this mean UV scatter is re-radiating as light to blue up the sky enough to heat my already hot water?
Tell me what do you know.
I still think both Vuk and Dr.S are both correct. The Sun is not only smacking the Earth with visible light. Much of Vuk’s (findings, theories or hypotheses) are what can affect the earth over decades later. Our geo-magnetic processes are largely unknown.

%d bloggers like this: