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]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/latest_512_hmiic1.jpg?quality=83)
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.
(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
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
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
The fire
warming the planet
has nothing to do
with warming the planet.
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. .
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.
The idea that the sun isn’t the major driver of climate is factually wrong, but you are entitled to ‘believe’ what you wish.
When I say ‘the sun’ I mean solar insolation within the Milankovitch framework, itself a variation in insolation.
Solar insolation changes drive ‘climate change’.
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.
spoken as a true believer….
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The climate does NOT change …
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.
heat accumulates when the sun is hot enough long enough, as it was post 1979
And post 1750, post 1835, and post 1940…
“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.
I do not and have no intention of believing in any of the discussed
Willful ignorance is the gravest of sins.
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.
I say
Glory Glory, Hallelujah Man
https://youtu.be/yTwJvVTQ6-0
Meaningless comment. Perhaps you should try to pollute WUWT a bit less…
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.
Since this is not a science discussion, your religion could be acceptable.
“Indeed, the sun is not a major driver of climate.”
Repeating a dogmatic statement 1000 times doesn’t make it more convincing.
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.
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.
Links missing for composites, try again …
7. Cycle 21-24
8. Cycle 24 (ten day resampled for consistency)
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
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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”
Thank you
Quoting yourself and showing your own graphs?
Some evidence.
@Alexander Feht
I know right!….Isn’t it ridiculous when experts comment on the subject that they are experts in?
Alexander Feht March 19, 2016 at 3:15 am
You clearly haven’t looked at the links.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
as the sun happened to be a star and you a solar scientist, your link is pure ‘aster logos’
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
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.
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
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.
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…..
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.
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
Gotta admit, this solar cycle has been more fun for the lay persons like myself.
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
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.
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.
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.
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].
Good Day Sunshine good video too..
https://youtu.be/plmnpVBszj4
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
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.