By Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt
In February 2016 our sun’s activity was, as in almost every month of the current cycle, well below the average. The observed SSN (SunSpotNumber) was 57.2. The average of the cycles 1 … 23 for this month is 80.8, thus the observed activity was 71% of the average value in the current 24th cycle.
Fig.1: The current activity of the cycle 24 (SC 24, red) compared to the average activity of the cycles 1 … 23 (blue) and cycle 5 (SC5, black).
A comparison of the cycles to each other:
Fig.2: The activity of the cycles 1 … 24. The values are generated with the addition of the monthly anomalies (the differences between the observed SSN values and the average value, as they are drawn in blue in Fig. 1)
In total only 57% of the SSN of the average cycle was observed during cycle 24. Most likely, the cycle will be one of the three weakest since observations began in 1749, and will be close to the Dalton Minima cycles (ca. 1790-1830, SC 5 … 7).
What is the likely continuation after the SC24? Previously (most recently here ) we indicated that the first clue for the nature of the next cycle is the strength of the polar fields of the Sun at the minimum of sunspot activity prior to the start of the cycle. Although we have not yet reached this point, we will nevertheless already take a preparatory look at these fields. We have processed the data that we obtained from here up to the end of February 2016. We used of the smoothed data (in the series with the “f” for low-pass filter) because the unfiltered data are too much affected by short-term variations.
Figure 3: The smoothed series of polar fields of the sun, the average (black) from the northern hemisphere (Nf, blue) and inverted southern hemisphere (-SF, red).
The polar fields of the sun oscillate out of phase with the spot cycle: at the maximum of these, the polar fields see a polarity reversal (zero crossing) and vice versa. Especially the fields of the NH grow significantly slower after the SSN Maximum in 2013 than measured after the reversals since the mid-70s. The SH (red in Figure 3), however, behaves quite normally and pushes the average (black in Figure 3) upwards.
The next figure looks at the differences between the two hemispheres:
Figure 4: The hemispherical differences of the polar fields of the sun. Positive values indicate stronger fields of NH, negative ones stronger fields of the SH.
It is obvious that different field strengths are not unusual. However, it should be noted that throughout the cycle since 2008 the fields of the SH were stronger than those of the NH (except during the reversal in 2013) and we currently record the largest difference in the fields since 1976, the beginning of the available data. Several papers deal with such a phenomenon, i.e. Munoz-Jaramillo et al. (2013) and Ashish Goe et al. (2007) . They link an asymmetry of the polar fields to a hemispheric decoupling of the solar dynamo. The latter paper also discusses the idea that a strong asymmetry of the solar dynamo might have been one of the causes of the Maunder Minimum (a period of very low solar activity 1715 to 1645). A closer look at the different field strengths of the polar fields therefore seems to make sense. We are curious of the behavior during the next one to two years, after this time the fields should already be at their maximum and the prediction of the next cycle should be quite possible.
Broken temperature records
The global temperature in February announced by GISS was 1.35 °C above the average from 1951 to 1980. This is an impressive record, 0.8 ° C (!) warmer than in February 2014. What is behind such a large jump in a relatively short time? One of the reasons is of course the current El Nino. Another element is the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool (IPWP). It extends from 90° East to 180° East and 20° South to 20° North:
Fig. 5: The IPWP (turquoise highlighted). Source: “Google Earth”
This sea area receives heated water of the tropical Pacific from South / Central America, driven by the trade winds under neutral conditions of ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) and during La Nina situations. We explained it here in more detail. Largescale, the globally highest ocean temperatures occur in this IPWP area, about 28.5°C. The heat that comes from the entire tropical Pacific is stored down to 500m water depth. The following figure shows how temperatures in this depth range developed since 2004:
Fig. 6: The vertical temperature distribution of IPWP (dbar = m water depth). Figure base on “Argo Global Marine Atlas”.
Clearly recognizable: Small El Nino 2004/2005 (blue = cooler), the La Nina 2008 caused a warming of IPWP, the El Nino 2009/2010 cooled, the La Nina 2011-2012 brought back the heat. Since 2014 a marked cooling occurs over the entire depth interval. For the discussion of the current global heat pulse, we concentrate on the period after January 2013.
Fig. 7: The temperatures of IPWP to 500m water depth (blue) since 2013, and the history of global temperatures (GISS, red) respectively to December 2015. (Data: GISS, Argo)
The average temperature of the IPWP has decreased by about 1°C since spring of 2013. Since the beginning of the Argo measurements in 2004, it has never been cooler than today. Note that this refers to a huge water mass of about 16 million cubic kilometers. For comparison: The energy that has been released from here corresponds to the amount that the whole earth receives from the sun by the solar radiation flux during a 4 days period. This huge amount of energy increases the global surface temperature which leads to increased radiation of a good part of the heat into space. An El Nino in the end therefore generates a heat loss of the system earth. The current pulse of warming is partly a consequence of this natural process. The recent temperature records therefore are more related to the natural ENSO cycle than to global warming of probably about 0.01° C / year by the effect of moderate greenhouse gases, when allowing for a reduced CO2 climate sensitivity.
Notes: A german version of this post appeared on the Kalte Sonne Blog. English translations of parts of this post have been featured on the Notrickszone website.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
lsvalgaard March 20, 2016 at 4:55 pm
here is high-resolution map of the cosmic ray intensity over the sky:from
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/objects/cosmic_rays1.html
Selectiveand misleading quoting of NASA’s article. NASA shows a spatial map of a moment in time as seen from the Earth:
“The magnetic fields of the Galaxy, the solar system, and the Earth have scrambled the flight paths of these particles so much that we can no longer point back to their sources in the Galaxy. If you made a map of the sky with cosmic ray intensities, it would be completely uniform.”
NASA has no idea where GCR come from, NASA concludes :
“Perhaps they (cosmic rays) come from outside the Galaxy, from active galactic nuclei, quasars or gamma ray bursts. Or perhaps they’re the signature of some exotic new physics: superstrings, exotic dark matter, strongly-interacting neutrinos, or topological defects in the very structure of the universe. ”
Neutron count according to most recent measurements varies only about 15-20% between solar max & min, your 1700s GSN data has 40% estimate difference for the solar max estimated values; plenty of room for tree rings data uncertainty.
Thanks to our good friend Dr. Mann, the tree rings science is given bad name, regardless how good it is.
” If you made a map of the sky with cosmic ray intensities, it would be completely uniform.”
Of course, does NOT mean it will be constant in time, which I think was your original point about the modulation time series.
As the intensity we see is the result of millions of years of scrambling by the turbulent interstellar magnetic field, time variations on the time that we are interested in [millenia] are completely washed out.
Again you have no idea what you are talking about.
1) because of the scrambling in space, the counts are also scrambled in time. The estimate is that we are seeing the average intensity over the last 2 million years.
2) What NASA didn’t know is the origin of the very rare ultra-high energy cosmic rays which are irrelevant for the modulation
3) The cosmic ray modulation is not a measure of the total intensity of the particles, but only of the change induced by solar activity so you cannot compare sizes as you did.
“Thanks to our good friend Dr. Mann, the tree rings science is given bad name, regardless how good it is.”
What Mann does is dendrothermometry which is a new “science” made up out of thin air to approve a political agenda. This has nothing to do with dendrochronology which is an established field of study.
You would do the latter a service if you avoid woolly term like “tree-ring science” that only serve deviant pseudo-scientists like Mann in falsely assimilating his Mickey Mouse tree-ring thermometers and trying to steal the credibility earned by decades os work by genuine scientists in dendrochronology.
Do you know where that “C14” data comes from? I’d like to do this properly, since the author of that graph seems incapable.
No I have no idea where the C14 graph data is available, else I would had a go at it too.
dccowboy:
” If you are allowed to rearrange historical data at your whim it will naturally support whatever hypothesis you wish to propose.”
‘That statement applies to NOAA/GISS as well as Mr Vukcevic.’
Howdy DC
Thanks for the comment, it is highly relevant to the discussion.
As it happens, I am protesting that‘ my bellowed Solar Grand Maximum’ by rearranging historical sunspot data has been moved from the late 1900s, two hundred years back to the late 1700s, where, oh what a “shock and awe”, no one ever before considered to be its place.
Recently I complained about the UK’s Met Office annual temperature data, and guess what, they followed my suggestion and changed the method of calculation after 60 years of doing it their way.
I also have been known to change one or two numbers in my equations when I realised the errors.
all the best to you.
Tom Halla
“Nice comment thread between Vucevic and Isvalgaard–what I had though I knew about solar influences on weather cycles is more indeterminate than I had thought.”
Hi Mr. Halla
Thanks, but not many people here would agree with your sentiment. Dr. Svalgaard is Stanford’s scientist with work of the global renown and importance, I am just an ordinary engineer, novice and amateur, often castigated for daring to question the highest of the authority. So far so good, as long as the exchanges are kept on a civilized and polite terms.
As it happens, I am protesting that‘ my bellowed Solar Grand Maximum’ by rearranging historical sunspot data has been moved from the late 1900s, two hundred years back to the late 1700s, where, oh what a “shock and awe”, no one ever before considered to be its place
Not true. Up until 1998 it was well established that the 18th century was very active. Hoyt & Schatten questioned that with their new Group Sunspot Number. We know now that their analysis was flawed, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Recalibrating-the-Sunspot-Number-CEAB.pdf
The traditional filter used by solar physicists on the sunspot number is meant to suppress the rotational [27-day] variation and does well enough for that while making comparisons with earlier work easier and discouraging petty food-fight over which filter is ‘better. The modern 20 nHz filter used for the polar fields is meant to suppress the annual variation and does a good job at that. The filter used by Hathaway and myself in http://www.leif.org/research/The-Waldmeier-Effect.pdf works well too. Filters are often constructed for specific purposes and the distortions [as all of them have] are well-known and rarely troublesome.
The traditional filter is also used to suppress fluctuations on a time scale of about a year. There are two steps: first monthly means are calculated, then the monthly means are averaged with the monthly means shifted by one month. The ‘filter’ is not really a filter in our modern use of the concept, but has historical standing which is why it is still used. To my knowledge, no scientific finding or result has been distorted by the use of the historical procedure.
Well what is this sliding average supposed to be if you don’t want to call it a filter? I suppose it’s a “smoother”, right?
If you want to take monthly averages what is the aim of the exercise? Is it to re-sample the data, reduce ‘noise’ or both?
The correct way to re-sample data, especially in the presence of known, strong periodicity like the 27d cycle is use an anti-alias filter before re-sampling. This is like data processing 101. Seems like the SSN boys slept through that one.
What is the aim of re-sampling by taking a monthly average and then “sliding” it to retain the same number of data points. It clearly because it is hoped that this will be some kind of FILTER. The naive assumption that averaging will effectively and correctly reduce noise, so sliding average will remove noise while retaining the time resolution is never even checked.
All filters can be said to distort that data, that is the object of filtering. The aim is get the distortions you want, not just any distortions that are ignorant of because you have never examined the frequency response of your filter, and for some reason imagine that it is not “really” a filter at all.
If you want to remove h.f. ‘noise’ you had better chose a filter that does not introduce more h.f. by INVERTING part of the signal.
It would also be more scientific if running average was labelled as running average an not called “11y average” in axis labels and graph comments. That is very sloppy and unprofessional.
The objective is to suppress short-term fluctuations. The smoothing is the traditional one in order to make comparisons with older analysis easier, not to demonstrate knowledge of smoothing 101. And not to satisfy people who have been snubbed before. You are not the first, nor shall remain the last, who has gotten on their high horse to no avail.
Lief. Nir Shaviv says that when extremely intense cosmic ray bombardment of the earth occurs as the solar system passes through a spiral arm of the Milky Way, geologic data confirms that major global cooling occurs at the time of this extreme cosmic bombardment. From this observation, he argues cosmic radiation is the cause of the global cooling. Is he wrong?
Link: http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
What he finds is speculative. Both the cosmic ray intensity and the temperatures on time scales of tens of millions of years are highly uncertain. Data from the Moon indicate that the cosmic ray intensity has varied but little over billions of years.
why we bother with tree rings then, moon’s C14 records should be the ideal proxy for solar activity holocene, ice ages etc etc, let’s have some data.
As there are no trees on the Moon, there is no 14C data to be had. But isotopes from cosmic rays can be collected from the Moon’s surface and show no large variation of the cosmic ray intensity over millions of years.
I don’t think there is much organic matter on the Moon.
I din’t think /sarc was necessary.
” there are no trees on the Moon”, thanks for the clarification, wasn’t aware of that.
With your stuff, it is hard to separate truth from fiction… or real information from \sarc …
Now, there is lots of CO2 on Mars, so there will be 14C data in the ice caps…
NASA has reported more single event satellite upsets caused by cosmic rays, rather than from solar activity these last years.Must tell them about the Moon data. 🙂
NASA has reported more single event satellite upsets caused by cosmic rays, rather than from solar activity these last years.
Consider that perhaps there are also more satellites…
Must tell them about the Moon data.
I strongly encourage you to make your voice heard so go tell them. However, they, of course, know this already.
Please explain how C14 comes from plants. According to this, C14 is made when cosmic rays hit nitrogen in the atmosphere. Where do the plants come into the equation?
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/04/science/la-sci-sn-cosmic-ray-increase-20120604
And what about Be10 and Titanium 44? How do we know these concentrations on the moon? Even if it is from moon rock, how do we know we brought back the right rocks?
14C combine with Oxygen to form 14CO2 with like ordicanry CO2 is plant food.
And what about Be10 and Titanium 44? How do we know these concentrations on the moon? Even if it is from moon rock, how do we know we brought back the right rocks?
10Be over the long run is consistent with the 14C data, although on short time scales the different residence time in the atmosphere make comparisons difficult in the short time.
44Ti data is highly variable and uncertain, so the jury is still out on that.
The Moon: what is the evidence that we picked the wrong rocks?
More precisely. It seems to me that plants only uptake the C14 from the atmosphere. They do not make it.
What is the evidence we picked the right rocks since cosmic rays fluctuate all over the earth?
We picked the rocks on the Moon in several places. If you have reason to believe the data is from the ‘wrong rocks’, show that evidence.
“One more time: the numbers are actual observations [~1100 of them during 1750-1799]”
n = 1100 /50 = 22/year”
That makes it less than 2 sunspot counts/month.
So, let’s have this clear, on bases of less than 2 observations / month (where all sorts of telescope optical problems could occur, grains of dust etc), your solar workshop decided to abolish the late 20th century well established and properly observed Grand Maximum, and past the honour of holding that record to the measly 2 observations/month in the late 1700s.
I could never sell such statistics to my employer, ‘he’ would never buy it, and if I attempted to do so, my job would end-up instantly in not much of a grand occasion.
Well, I don’t buy it either, but that doesn’t matter, does it..
decided to abolish the late 20th century well established and properly observed Grand Maximum
More nonsense. The modern data stays where it is [properly corrected for spurious weighting of spots]. It is just that the 18th century maximum is higher. Hoyt and Schatten showed that, even if you have observations on only 5% of days spread over a year, the average [true] sunspot number is well-determined from them [you can do that experiment your self: take the modern daily sunspot data, pick at random 20 days from each year, compute their average and compare with the yearly averages of the full series]. The geomagnetic and cosmic ray data confirm the 18th century high solar activity, so there is really no way we honestly can get around that. This is not to say that there will not be ‘rear-guard’ activists trying to old series because of their belief that it gives a convenient explanation for Global Warming or because it plays better with their own speculations.
Interesting, except the CO2 warming signal is not as clear from all of this murky data as stated at the end. This is one model projection I would like to see over SC 25 with backing of cycle strength predictions coming up soon.
Dr. Svalgaard
“‘rear-guard’ activists trying to old series because of their belief that it gives a convenient explanation for Global Warming or because it plays better with their own speculations.”
Yes, agree about that.
a) my speculation is irrelevant, despite the fact that may by chance, coincidence or possibly crudely reflecting natural events, got SC24 and development of polar fields to date ‘correct’ or not, anyone with any sense should not take it for granted. I do not have power, and if I did I would not suggest that anyone should modify their way of life based on it, right or wrong.
b) You and your colleagues are on the opposite end of the scale of influence, your (the workshop’s) views on these matters are now accepted as the world standard.
Powerful governments around world, including your own, listen to you on the solar matters, and if you are saying that old data
“ it gives a convenient explanation for Global Warming and to the contrary the new data takes away a convenient explanation for Global Warming you (the workshop) are taking HUGE responsibility on your shoulders, since millions if not billions of people around the world are and will be affected.
You (the workshop) may be right or god forbid, may be wrong, either way I wouldn’t swap the places.
All the best to you and your team.
if you are saying that old data
“ it gives a convenient explanation for Global Warming
Read what I said: it is the people who claims that the late 18th century has small solar activity who gives ammo to the view that it is an ‘explanation’ for global warming.
Data on this graph, now the solar activity ‘the world standard” is yours not mine, it is of profound importance for many decisions to be made in the near future regardless what others may claim about late 1700s.
I am only pointing out the obvious implication of the recalibration of the data,
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NGM.gif
I am only pointing out the obvious implication of the recalibration of the data
Guess what. others have discovered that too.
http://www.iau.org/news/pressreleases/detail/iau1508/
Another obvious implication is the failure of your formula:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failure-34.png
And those maxima [one in each of the 17th, 18th- 19th- and 20th century] are not all that grand.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL03804-Berggren.pdf
“A comparison with sunspot and neutron records confirms that ice core 10Be reflects solar Schwabe cycle variations, and continued 10Be variability suggests cyclic solar activity throughout the Maunder and Spoerer grand solar activity minima. Recent 10Be values are low; however, they do not indicate unusually high recent solar activity compared to the last 600 years.”
10Be ? that is amusing. Once upon time Dr. Svalgaard said “10Be is only good proxy for 10Be”.
I hope you are not trying to equate what I calculated with your SSN recalibration?
However it would be nice if my simple equation fitted whatever sun has done before 1800, but since I don’t know, I normally don’t show it. Maybe sun has done what you say, may be my equation needs 3rd component, who knows.
No evaluation of acuracy can be made one way or the other on just ’22 observations/annum’ but those who are responsible for making the life changing decisions, will use the highly speculative ’22 observations/annum’ to fortify their case.
You got my sympathy.
However it would be nice if my simple equation fitted whatever sun has done before 1800, but since I don’t know, I normally don’t show it.
You don’t show it because it doesn’t fit. I would wager that if it fitted, then you would proudly show it.
highly speculative ’22 observations/annum
That 22 is enough and is not speculative. Try it yourself, if you dare. If you don’t …
Leif: Never give up the hope!
Einstein once said: “there are two things that are infinite: the Universe and Human Stupidity. And I’m not so sure about the Universe…”
Greg: How do you know that the 20nHz filter distorts the raw-data? You have two options: 1st: You can write a response and romance about filters. 2nd: You can download the data ( link in the post) and compare and yoiu can decide if this filter is ok or not. I did it for you, it took 5 minutes:
http://www.directupload.net/file/d/4301/gwchqaof_png.htm
Greg: how can you know that the 20nhz-Filter distorts the raw-data? You have two options: 1st.: You can write a response and romance about the possibilities of filters to distort data. 2nd: You can download the data ( link is in the post) and take a look. I did it for you, it took 5 minutes.
http://www.directupload.net/file/d/4301/gwchqaof_png.htm
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160322/6el2nexp.png
used to be
No such phrase as “use to be” in normal speech.
It’s a pitty that EVERY post here about the actual development of the sun’s activity, the polar fields… and so on ends in an endless discussion of the SSN-record. It’s so unsuccessful because the record stands as one downloads it from here: http://www.sidc.be/silso/datafiles . It was done a great job by Leif and others and the result is accepted. This must not be the very last word because the science developes, anyway: at this point it’s useless to discuss a given record. Or discussions about a given low-pass filter. In the original post arose some other question: What do we know about the asymmetry of the polar fields, were there big differences during MM as we observe it during SC24? We don’t know I’m afraid because the (annual) proxy-data only go back to 1900. There were only a few thoughts about the really interesting questions, thanks to Leif. And: the original post never linked the sun’s activity to the global temperatures. I think that was not the intention… anyway: the echo in the discussions was decoupled from the content in broad scale IMO. All the best!
It always ends like that because of our resident pseudo-scientists and trolls trying to peddle their nonsense stuff and never being willing to learn anything.
I agree. That was one of the things that caught my eye. However, if you are going to start looking at the difference between the hemispheres, you want to be doing just that, not looking at the difference in the way a broken, crappy filter is distorting each hemisphere’s data.
This is not pedantry, it is basic data processing. You don’t mange and invert you data before analysing it to try get insight into the processing driving what is observed.
If you want to study rise times of each cycle, cycle length and it’s relationship to cycle strength you’d best make sure that you are not shifting the data of the peak by 3 months and inverting a peak into a trough by bad d.p.
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/triple-running-mean-filters/
However, if you are going to start looking at the difference between the hemispheres
That is not the purpose as the hemispheres varies rather independently from each other.
Note how the running mean ‘fitler’ is almost in anti-phase with variations in the data ( and the well behaved filters ).
The object is to get rid off the smaller bumps, not to have them match the large fluctuations.
Don’t think Einstein would have been very sure about you either, Leif.
Don’t think Einstein would have been very sure about you either, Leif.
You are right, I don’t fit in the category he was sure about [hint: it was not the Universe]. Perhaps you are a better fit…
Well that is a total failure then, one of the first ways you can spot that a running mean filter have been used is looking h.f. variations that it is supposed to removed. The other give away is troughs where peaks should be.
Most 11y running averages will have year to year jitter such as can be seen your graph around 1730 end elsewhere. You may have removed any 11y sinusoidal variations but you’ve got a load of short term noise in the result. Most of which is totally spurious junk and not even a residual of the true signal.
I’m amazed that people in serious science subjects like solar physics are still using such poorly performing, distorting filters. Let alone coming back persistently to try and justify sloppy practices.
Filtering is often used for specific purposes. For example, Hathaway design his filter such that it makes each cycle have only one local maximum and one local minimum such that the size if a cycle is uniquely determined. Other people use different filters of their own design to suppress different variations, e.g. our use of a 20 nHz filter to remove the annual variation. Janssens use a filter designed by Meeus [ http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Engzonnecyclus.html ]. The traditional smoothing is retained for historical reasons. There is nothing sloppy about any of this. But I guess that once you have gone down your road of petty pedantry you have painted yourself into a corner you cannot get out of.
Leif: This could be a felicitous last word… I’m afraid it’s not. 😉
best
Frank
” but that’s what happened.”
Agreed.
Plus everywhere the nightly surface temps get near dew point, water is removed from the air. Much evaporates the next morning, but not all.
Climbing TSI from 2009-2016 drove recent temperatures higher. We are riding the energetic crest of this solar cycle, and the ride is downhill now for a number of years ahead.
The SC24 TSI peak in early 2015 energized the 2015 El Nino, which kicked off in earnest last March.
Year 1au TSI
2015 1361.4321
2014 1361.3966
2013 1361.3587
2016 1361.3045
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
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt
Heat accumulated in the ocean as TSI climbed higher. Smoothed TSI last year dropped until mid Sept, as did the equatorial OHC, until TSI bumped up again, driving OHC higher for a few months. That’s history.
Equatorial ocean heat content is back to pre 2015 ENSO levels:
2014 12 0.50 0.48 0.54
2015 1 0.28 0.22 0.15
2015 2 0.54 0.65 0.83
2015 3 0.85 1.17 1.52
2015 4 1.05 1.42 1.74
2015 5 1.03 1.42 1.53
2015 6 0.87 1.27 1.51
2015 7 0.92 1.36 1.69
2015 8 0.99 1.43 1.97
2015 9 1.04 1.48 1.80
2015 10 1.04 1.51 1.91
2015 11 0.92 1.41 1.78
2015 12 0.58 1.04 1.20
2016 1 0.44 0.88 1.25
2016 2 -0.03 0.32 0.58
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/index/heat_content_index.txt
Global SSTs were down in February:
2015/12 0.717
2016/01 0.732
2016/02 0.604
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/HadSST.3.1.1.0/diagnostics/HadSST.3.1.1.0_monthly_globe_ts.txt
The solar and SST record is replete with such examples of SST sensitivity to TSI, where heat accumulates when TSI is high enough, driving temps higher, only to fall again under lower TSI periods when OHC drops.
The solar data record can be interpreted from this viewpoint to explain climate ‘changes’ since the 1700’s.
Leif: As I said 🙂
In this graph Dr. Svalgaard compares his newly created Sunspot Group data to the tree rings extracted C14 data (C14 should be delayed by 1 year + time to the next growing season)
http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison-GSN-14C-Modulation.png
In this graph M. Vukcevic compares the CET’s temperature record to the above C14 data
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/C14b.png
It can be seen that on number of occasions the CET leads C14 data by far more than two years maximum (1 year + time to next next growing season).
What does this mean?
The author M. Vukcevic declined to comment.
A spurious and weak correlation can lead or lag by any amount. But the residence time of 14C is of the order of 40 years so your nonsense about growing season is just that: nonsense.
lsvalgaard March 22, 2016 at 12:25 pm says The great aurorae seen at lower latitudes only occurs when there are large solar storms directly related to large solar flares and sunspots. This has been known for over a century.
I’m located at 52 deg. N and I made some VHF-connections (“QSOs”) during sunspot-minima over aurorae conditions with impressive loud signals. These aurorae were related to aequatorial CH. This is also described here: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/solar-minima.html . It’s the own lived reality, one could say: anecdotely. Anyway: the own experience makes big influence…
Aurorae can occur at any time. Further North they are permanent. In Denmark they follow the sunspot cycle nicely
http://www.leif.org/research/Mid-Latitude-Aurorae-Solar-Cycle.png
In Hungary they only occur at VERY high solar activity:
http://www.leif.org/research/Fritz-Isochasms.png
or a different view:
http://www.leif.org/research/Fritz-Isochasms-vs-Latitude.png
The numbers are the number of days per year when aurorae can be seen
A good measure of solar activity in early times is the number of aurorae reported. Here are the records from southern Sweden [moderately high latitude where aurorae are often seen] and Hungary [lower latitude where aurorae are rare; only the highest solar activity cause aurorae this far south]:
http://www.leif.org/research/Auroral-Plots.png
Mother Nature is showing us a very natural phenomenon [high solar activity in the late 18th century]. Sorry that it falsifies your pet and spurious formula. Time to give it up, or at least to stop polluting WUWT with it.
Regarding auroras. The Laki eruption was in 1785. Its ash, transported on the wind produced sky-obscuring conditions in many areas of northern Europe. In Hungary at that time, auroras would be more visible. Records are thin of other eruptions that may have occurred during the time frames when auroras appeared to disappear in these countries. And maybe it was because the skies were obscured with the aftermaths of volcanic activity.
https://www.eh-resources.org/volcanic-eruptions-and-european-history/
Well done Ms Gray! You demolished Dr. Svalgaard’s premise that ‘sun has nothing to do with climate change’.
According to quotes below, the CET was severely affected; else it might have had a boost from the high solar cycles if such existed.
If so then there is an undisputable correlation of the CET to solar activity through all 360 years of available records.
The Laki eruption starting in June 1873 lasted for about 8 months, ejecting an estimated 14 km3 of basaltic lava from more than 100 vents along more than 20 km fissure and cones. This was one of the largest basaltic eruptions known.
Nearby Grímvötn was erupted more than half a dozen from1783 to 1785.
“ Icelandic volcanic eruption (Laki): Primary eruptions (five) from June 8th to July 8th, 1783 (60% of the total volume of ejection), but minor eruptions occurred until early February, 1784. A major event, with huge production of sulphur & acid products, as well as the largest production of lava in recorded history. The majority of emissions are thought to have been confined to the troposphere, but the initial ejections of each of the five major events did penetrate the tropopause and entered the stratosphere. The intense period of eruption tallied with contemporary reports across Europe of a blue haze or dry-fog in the atmosphere, damage to vegetation and occurrence of respiratory problems (later analysis suggests that the mortality due to the sulphur-based haze was counted in tens of thousands dead): the effects noted at the time throughout summer & autumn. These effects are consistent with increased atmospheric loading of acid aerosols, particularly sulphates. Because of the (suspected) lack of major stratospheric impact, there is controversy surrounding this event: For Iceland itself, the following winter (1783/84) was known as the ‘Famine Winter’: 25% of the population died (many from wet and dry deposition of acidic pollutants). Note, there is still some argument as to whether this led to changes to the regional/European climate in the years 1783, 1784 etc., and / or by how much.”
“January to April 1784 … notably cold, and persistently so by CET series. In particular, the winter (1783 December – 1784 February) CET=1.2degC, some 2.5C below the all-series average. The Thames was completely frozen in February and traffic crossed on the ice.
Three successive cold years; heavy snow fell on the 25th October 1784 and there was snow on the 26th & 29th October 1785.
1784 In this cold year (in the ‘top-10 coldest years in the CET record), the summer was wet in London/South; sleet observed near coast of the Moray Firth in August & heavy snow (?London) on the 25th October.
1784 was a notably cold year; with a CET value of 7.8degC, this year falls within the ‘top-10’ of coldest years in this series (since 1659), and is approximately 2C below the modern-day average. In particular, the summer was consistently chilly. Each summer month (JJA) had a CET anomaly of at least (minus)0.5C, and August had an anomaly of -1.6C on the whole-series mean.
1784 was a notably cold year; with a CET value of 7.8degC, this year falls within the ‘top-10’ of coldest years in this series (since 1659), and is approximately 2C below the modern-day average.
Yet solar activity was high.
frankclimate March 22, 2016 at 12:07 pm
I would tend to the opinion that aurorae are not a very good proxy for SSN.
The great aurorae seen at lower latitudes only occurs when there are large solar storms directly related to large solar flares and sunspots. This has been known for over a century.
Even coronal holes follow the sunspot cycle, albeit with a phase shift of a few years.
Leif, I’m not quite sure if the Aurorae is a very good measure for solar activity for two reasons: 1st:Also coronal holes (CH) can lead to big aurorae (open flux) and CH are not a good measure for Solar activity. 2nd: If a flare leads to aurorae it must be earth directed and this more or less randomly. Of course the probability is greater when there are many active regions on the solar disc…anyway I would tend to the opinion that aurorae are not a very good proxy for SSN.
I’ve long liked the study from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory showing a correlation between aurorae and Nile River levels.
==============
The correlation of the hungarian aurorae to the SSN is very weak during this time (1725…1875) as I guessed. Aurorae (also the very south) are a very bad proxy for SSN…
That you keep repeating it does not make it so. It is generally accepted [and actually true] that the great aurorae seen at lower latitudes are the result of a level of high solar activity [I hope it should not be necessary to produce a list of links to show that, just as it is not necessary to produce a list of links to show that the Earth is not flat, etc]. Nobody claims that there is a correlation day-by-day, or even year-by-year. And the correlation of the Hungarian aurorae with the level of solar activity is actually good, considering the non-linearity of the auroral response:
http://www.leif.org/research/Aurorae-Hungary-14C-GSN.png
Vuk, if an aurora was visible further South while not being recorded further North, multiple lines of evidence suggests that it must have been a strong one and that volcanic ash obscured its occurrence in northern areas. If indeed solar activity was high enough to produce a visible aurora further South, as it appears to have been, your premise that an active Sun should increase heat has not been demonstrated during this time period. I will stipulate that you say it is because of the aftermaths of a volcanic eruption. However, ash was not everywhere. What do the reconstructions suggest about temperatures in areas beyond the effects of that eruption? Your proposal, if I read you correctly: active Sun=hotter climate, is that temperatures should be hotter somewhere. Where?
if an aurora was visible further South while not being recorded further North, multiple lines of evidence suggests that it must have been a strong one and that volcanic ash obscured its occurrence in northern areas.
A strong geomagnetic storm moves the auroral oval [zone] south, so that the strong aurora will be seen at low latitudes and not at high latitudes. See e.g. Slide 9 of http://www.leif.org/research/The-Geo-Response-Extreme-Events.pdf [orange dots]
This has nothing to do with volcanic ash. Vuk simply does not know what he is talking about [as usual].
Does the oval get bigger thus pushing the edge South or does the whole thing shift South?
The strong aurorae move south, but there is also a [weaker] component that broadens the oval.
Leif, I was away for two days… Part of misunderstanding could be that as a ham I’m focused on radio-aurorae which are more often than visual ones. I know that radio-aurorae also are observed in some cases due to CH also far in the south. In the 16th century nobody noticed radio-aurorea ( there was no radio 🙂 ). So in the end it reduces to visible aurorae and this is of course right: These pheanomena in the latitudes of hungary only appear during strong storms from solar flares and cme.
Moscow Neutron Monitor
http://cr0.izmiran.ru/scripts/nm64queryD.dll/mosc?PD=1&title=Moscow&dt=0&base=9600&Res=1_month&y1=1957&y2=2016
I like using the Moscow Neutron Monitor too.
Try looking at the 27 day corrected, for just one year. wow grinding upwards like N.S. said…
lsvalgaard March 22, 2016 at 12:18 pm
1784 was a notably cold year; with a CET value of 7.8degC, ….. Yet solar activity was high.
Perhaps you are not familiar with effect of Icelandic volcanic eruptions on the NW European weather. Something you might like to learn about.
In Denmark’s colony of that time (Iceland) winter (1783/84) was known as the ‘Famine Winter’: 25% of the population died (many from wet and dry deposition of acidic pollutants)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET1690-1960a.gif
Your GSN averages for two illustrated periods were very similar so were the CET temperatures.
Note effect of the two volcanic eruptions.
frankclimate March 22, 2016 at 12:07 pm
Not that you would care much, but I do agree with your comment, as this illustration from Dr. Svalgaard’s university solar webpage clearly shows:
http://soi.stanford.edu/results/2001_MDI_sr_review/images/Image67.gif
In Denmark’s colony of that time (Iceland) winter (1783/84) was known as the ‘Famine Winter’: 25% of the population died (many from wet and dry deposition of acidic pollutants)
Irrelevant for the issue of high or low solar activity. During those time in the late 18th century solar activity was very high, perhaps even higher than during the last 70 years.
Your Ap graph clearly shows that high solar activity follows the solar cycle and is high when the cycles are large. Did you know this? If not, look carefully and then you will know.
“that high geomagnetic activity follows the solar cycle”…
During the late 18th century the geomagnetic record, the cosmic ray record, the auroral record, the sunspot record all agree that activity was very high.
lsvalgaard March 22, 2016 at 1:31 pm
“that high geomagnetic activity follows the solar cycle”…
During the late 18th century the geomagnetic record, the cosmic ray record, the auroral record, the sunspot record all agree that activity was very high.
———————————————————————————————————————————————–
I didn’t want to play with this topic. I was having fun with the solar asymmetry stuff.
But for Vuks sake, hypothetical this for me,
Earth’s magnetic field can change in “local” geographic locations. Not everywhere and not all at once.
The 2015 mapping by SWARM satellites, record a decline in field over N. Lats of USA and a gain in strength in the Indian Ocean. That would change an auroral viewers frequency and the location of ability to view. (kp).
Magnetic field changes over short period of time., That’s my comment.
But will there be a further decline in magnetic field strength over the Northern Latitude USA during the continuing Solar decline…?
Variation in the Earth’s magnetic field, changes things Dr. S.
Those changes are very small and slow, amounting to a few percent per century, so will not have any significant effect on the time scale of a human generation.
Noe, the location of the auroral oval also changes with time and because some geomagnetic indices are extremely sensitive to the distance of the measuring stations from the oval and that change can be significant. We minimize it by using stations that are far enough away from the oval that the effect is small.
Over centuries those changes add up, but can be measured and are corrected for.
Earth’s roaming magnetic N. Pole may provide some clues. It was in the Eastern Hemi back then? Not in Canada as far as I recall.
The northern magnetic pole was quite stable until a few decades ago, so its ‘roaming’ is not problematic.
furthermore, that is the pole as observed on the surface. Out in space [where its direction matters for the interaction with the magnetosphere] the variation is much less.
Thanks for the reply Dr. S.
My map shows N. Magnetic pole in 1700, is 0 degrees E.
By 1750 is 40 degrees West, midway over Greenland.
By 1800 is 70 degrees West of Greenland and headed for Canada.
Vuks formula problem is 1750’s to 1800’s or so.
I think Vuks has a copy of this mapping.
Clues to the ever changing magnetic fields on rotating bodies.
Could say something about core acceleration and deacceleration effecting tectonics and the strength and the strength of surrounding fields. Acceleration and deacceleration related to LOD which follows long term solar cycle, and on and on.
More direct observations on your mapping don’t begin until 1831, but thanks…
We don’t need a direct observation on the spot to determine where the pole is. Measurements at lower latitudes work as well with good data back to 1590 AD, The ‘pole’ as seen from space does not move around much.
Your map Dr S., of the roaming Magnetic N. Pole is in line with the one available here.
Historical Magnetic Declination
http://maps.ngdc.noaa.gov/viewers/historical_declination/
Includes maps for North and South pole as well as the usual Mercator view.
FYI
In 1700 Europe was in a NULL point, according to the above. By 1750 Null point shifts to W. Europe and S. to Africa by 1800. Same Null point in the Atlantic these days.
Cool tool for watching the Earths Magnetic Field from 1590 to present.
Null points can be fun too……..
lsvalgaard March 22, 2016 at 1:28 pm
“ In Denmark’s colony of that time (Iceland) winter (1783/84) was known as the ‘Famine Winter’….
Irrelevant for the issue of high or low solar activity. “
But of the extreme importance for now indisputable correlation (all of the 360 years long) of the CET to the solar activity. It is the only thing that matters to millions if not billions of people, who might be hard done by their political leaders relying on the spurious claim of the few, that ‘sun has nothing to do with the climate change’
indisputable correlation
herewith disputed.
“Your Ap graph clearly shows that high solar activity follows the solar cycle and is high when the cycles are large.”
But not necessarily directly proportional, so you are a bit wrong in there. SC21 and SC22 are higher than the SC18 and yet total number of high Ap days is higher in SC18 than either in the SC21 or SC22.
BTW I note that Stanford has not bothered with your newly designed SSN, they are staying with classic.
But not necessarily directly proportional,
Don’t have to be as long as high cycles on average have high geomagnetic activity and low cycles have low geomagnetic activity, as in fact is the case, completely ruining your ‘theory’.
About Stanford: so what? they may still show some outdated slides. Stanford no longer has a solar outreach program. And it is not ‘my’ SSN, but the official SSN, the best available.
kim March 22, 2016 at 12:54 pm
I’ve long liked the study from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory showing a correlation between aurorae and Nile River levels.
I would say with good reason too.
Faro Akhenaten husband of beautiful Nefertiti, was well aware of Nile –sun link. He abolished traditional Egyptian polytheism and introducing worship of the Aten, the sun-disk.
In this illustration Akhenaten is shown in form of a sphinx observing changes on the solar disk, possibly consulting with notes on the clay tablets in the front
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Egypt.jpg
There are numerous illustration of Akheneten and his family (google it) with solar disc centrally depicted.
Complete with sunspots it seems. How do they match your formula?
There is nothing in my formula that Ptolemy of Alexandria didn’t know
You both use epicycles on epicycles to make things fit…
And yet the result is poor.
Do you mind, I was addressing Kim.
In general, you should be specific and not just fire off drive-by, random missives.
my formula is doing fine, thank you for enquiring.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.gif
After all this you still hang on to your failed formula. Quite amazing, but a good example of human folly, even D-K syndrome. You are not even ashamed of this.
And you still dishonestly hide the failure before 1800. Says it all.
Insults answer I do not.
Insults use I do not.
goodbye
Good riddance.
About same as in 1950s
Good that you have seen the light. The 1950s had the classical highest solar cycle 19, on par with the ones in the late 18th century.
Was a response to
vukcevic commented on The Sun in February 2016 and the latest heat records.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AH.gif
About same as in 1950s
Danish Aurora data follow to a degree sunspot cycles.
One notable thing about the Danish data is that it has strong Hale cycle periodicity, which is absent in the sunspot data, but unsurprisingly present in the Land and Ocean temperature data, another indication that the global climate change is primarily driven by the solar activity
Reason for this is that the Earth’s magnetosphere presents different ‘resistance’ to the odd and even cycles. Reason for this is explained by NASA scientist as follows:
Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) in the even-numbered solar cycles tend to hit Earth with a leading edge that is magnetized north. Such CMEs open a breach and load the magnetosphere with plasma starting a geomagnetic storm.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/DA.gif
(p.s. expect angry and futile protestations from professional full time ‘it is not the sun’ or ‘it is CO2’ practitioners, the climate natural variability negators)
Reason for this is that the Earth’s magnetosphere presents different ‘resistance’ to the odd and even cycles
You never learn. There is a well-known 22-year cycle in geomagnetic activity, but it goes from max to max and is thus not tied to the even-odd system that goes from min to min. The real reason for this was discovered long ago, see e.g. Section 9 of http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf or
http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/public/rmcpherr/McPherronPDFfiles/McPherron_RecurrentStorms_BrazilChapman_GM01013_CH12.pdf
I have moved elsewhere, put your skates on else you’ll never catch up with me.
As I said upthread: good riddance. You are clearly afraid to face the music.
These two can tango!
================
When are the outdated active region count charts on WUWT attributed to L Svalgaard going to be updated or replaced?
Which ones, exactly?
Leif Svalgaard – Active Region Count: (updated weekly)
http://www.leif.org/research/Active%20Region%20Count.png
Perhaps there is a server redirect problem at play here and WUWT is linked to an old unchanging file version (?).
Here you go. The WUWT link is old. I cannot update that old link.
http://www.leif.org/research/Active%20Region%20Count.png
The count for 2016 is preliminary and lags a couple of months behind.
The counts are normalized to a constant length of a month of 30.53 days.