The Sun in January 2016!
By Frank Bosse and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)
The largest mass of our solar system (99.8% of the total mass) was also rather quiet in January. The determined solar sunspot number (SSN) was 56.6, which is 71% of the mean this far into the period, calculated using the 23 previously measured solar cycles.
Figure 1: Plot of the monthly sunspot number so far for the current cycle (red line) compared to the mean solar cycle (blue line) and the similar solar cycle no. 5 (black).
The earlier peak occurring at month number 35 (fall 2011) signaled the time of the SSN maximum at the sun’s northern hemisphere. The later peaks occurring at about month no. 68 (mid 2014) are the SSN maximum for the sun’s southern hemisphere. What follows is a plot of all cycles, showing the accumulated number of sunspots over the first 86 months into the cycle:
Figure 2: Comparison of sunspot activity for every cycle occurring since 1755. the values represent the deviation from the mean SSN (blue curve in Figure 1).
There are about 3 more years to go before the end of solar cycle no. 24 is reached. When it is finished we will very likely see the red bar representing solar cycle no. 24 in Figure 2 winding up well below that of solar cycle no. 7, which was the last occurring during the Dalton Minimum. That cycle had much more activity in the end phase than what we are seeing in the current cycle.
Prognoses here, however, are fraught with huge uncertainty, as “solar weather” defies all forecasting attempts and no one can say with any certainty what can be expected to happen over the next two years – except for over the long run, the current cycle will end in a rather quiet fashion.
========================
Note from NoTricksZone:
The combination of recent North Atlantic cooling, the projected coming La Niña, and the expected period of low solar activity may see the planet cooling over the next 10 years as fast as it warmed during a few short years in the 1990s. Joe Bastardi’s “Triple Whammy of Cooling” truly is taking shape.
Now all we need is a major volcanic eruption.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/642616/Exclusion-zone-set-up-around-one-of-world-s-deadliest-volcanoes-as-eruptions-causes-quake
or several even…
https://earthsky.org/earth/icy-volcano-in-chile-about-to-erupt
http://tinyurl.com/glgnf2o
http://abcnews.go.com/International/volcano-erupts-japan-triggering-dramatic-lightning-strikes-night/story?id=36737839
https://www.ticotimes.net/2016/02/09/turrialba-volcano-records-new-ash-gas-explosions
It that now what you think it takes for PR to counter AGW, a volcanoe that is just a short-term natural variation?
Are you really that obtuse?
I’m afraid he is, he makes a living out of it!
Current RSS, and trend over last 18 years.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/plot/rss
No warming. According to the Santer criterion, the CO2-Global Warming theory is falsified.
A horrible cherry pick of data. And i am glad you switched to UAH, as the (manufactured) “pause” has basically been wiped out in the UAH set:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/06/the-pause-hangs-on-by-its-fingernails/
Sod, your reading capabilities never seize to amaze. Or have you really not heard of Santer and his 18 years criterion?
I’m not sure whether he said 15 or 17. We’re beyond it in any case.
sod, BTW, it’s not a cherry pick: The Santer criterion demands that I go from here into the past. Any interval longer than 17 years that shows no warming fulfills Santer’s criterion to refute CO2AGW theory. Santer is a warmunist modeler.
The theory was already falsified when the scientists discovered that it implied less and more snow.
I am sorry but AGW was not falsified. It could not be because it is not falsifiable. These warming suppositions fall somewhere between political science and women’s studies. Sod would know where exactly.
Women’s studies can be quite interesting. Some time ago I’ve read an article by a historian showing that there were several rich female merchants in the history of my city. At the end there was a painted portrait of such a merchant, early nineteenth century. What a horrible bitch that woman was. You didn’t want to meet her in a dark alley. These studies do not pretend to make predictions, however, an important difference with some sciences.
That is interesting. Some of the women’s studies practitioners I met in Boulder didn’t display any merchant shrewdness but they more than made up for it with their dark alley forte.
You must have met my ex… to say the least, a really bad person.
18 years is too short of a time period to draw conclusions about climate change.
And RSS’s leader Carl Mears thinks the surface dataset is more reliable anyway:
“A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets….”
Carl Mears, Senior Research Scientist, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS)
http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures
“18 years is too short of a time period to draw conclusions about climate change.” _ David Appell
But 22 years? Now that’s more like it!
“The grey shaded area [data from 1979-2000] corresponds to the climate mean”
David Appell 11. February 2016 at 5:53 AM | Permalink | Reply
“18 years is too short of a time period to draw conclusions about climate change.”
Santer didn’t think so. He assured that non-warming over such a period, while CO2 is rising, would mean that “the models have a problem”.
And the models are the only quantifiable expression of the CO2AGW theory so I take them as BEING the theory.
More Mears:
“Does this slow-down in the warming mean that the idea of anthropogenic global warming is no longer valid? The short answer is ‘no’. The denialists like to assume that the cause for the model/observation discrepancy is some kind of problem with the fundamental model physics, and they pooh-pooh any other sort of explanation. This leads them to conclude, very likely erroneously, that the long-term sensitivity of the climate is much less than is currently thought.
“The truth is that there are lots of causes besides errors in the fundamental model physics that could lead to the model/observation discrepancy. I summarize a number of these possible causes below. Without convincing evidence of model physics flaws (and I haven’t seen any), I would say that the possible causes described below need to be investigated and ruled out before we can pin the blame on fundamental modelling errors.”
http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures
Yet he admits
“there is not much doubt that the rate of warming since the late 1990’s is less than that predicted by most of the IPCC AR5 simulations of historical climate. This can be seen in the RSS data, as well as most other temperature datasets”
Sadly, Mears, in fact, is in denial himself by taking the IPCC modelling as gospel and requiring evidence to refute it. It should be the other way – a model should have to prove its accuracy before any decisions are made based on its predictions. Naomi Oreskes stated this in 1994.
“Without convincing evidence of model physics flaws (and I haven’t seen any), I would say that the possible causes described below need to be investigated and ruled out before we can pin the blame on fundamental modelling errors.”
Well wait. The models – which are failing – are the Null hypothesis now?
You warmunists have tried to play this trick since Schneider’s Machtergreifung.
sorry, should be RSS first in my post above.
“No warming. According to the Santer criterion, the CO2-Global Warming theory is falsified.”
You are completely misrepresenting what Santer said:
“Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016263/abstract
Notice the term “at least”. also notice the title of the paper:
“Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale”
The most simple method to distinguish signal from noise on a linear trend is a small change to start and end date. If the trend changes significantly, you are looking at noise. If it does not, you might be looking at a signal.
I’d say 18 is “at least 17”
“I’d say 18 is “at least 17″”
that is true, but has no meaning. If somebody say you need at least 17 years to show something, the 18 years without it does not contradict the claim.
Welcome to the Certainty Bar And Grill
We have a fine temperature sausage for you today, sod. All that nasty error fat trimmed neatly away, so you can get the most from your data meal.
“The most simple method to distinguish signal from noise on a linear trend is a small change to start and end date. If the trend changes significantly, you are looking at noise. If it does not, you might be looking at a signal.”
You’re a signal processing expert now? Wow. That’s difficult, right?
So what you’re saying is that El Nino’s are noise, as they are big spikes.
This means you’re saying as well:
-Power production by wind power is noise.
(Can you run an industrialized country on noise? No you can’t.)
-Your claim of “hottest January ever” is noise.
So wait. You’re using a noise spike, after your definition. to tell us that CO2AGW is real? Now that’s quite an underhanded tactic. Not surprising though.
Also, square signals might disagree with you defining them to be noise.
“You’re a signal processing expert now? Wow. That’s difficult, right?”
No.
if the trend changes if you change the starting month or if you get a single month with new data in, then your trend is not a trend. That is not difficult to understand, most primary school children can get this (didn t someone recently claim i am below 11 years old?).
“So what you’re saying is that El Nino’s are noise, as they are big spikes.”
no. you do not understand this at all, do you?
“spikes” are not automatically “noise”. what is noise and what is signal depends on what you are trying to look at. if you look at the el nino phenomenon, the spikes are signal, not noise.
If you look at annual cycles, the annual cycle is signal , not noise. If you are looking at long term trends, both annual cycles and el ninos turn into noise.
“Power production by wind power is noise.”
no.
Power production is obviously signal for power production. you seem to be confused.
“Your claim of “hottest January ever” is noise.”
no.
if you are looking for a warming trend, then constant new temperature records are obviously a sign of a signal. Please try to understand the basic. Why not look at some statistic 101 online?
“So wait. You’re using a noise spike, after your definition. to tell us that CO2AGW is real?”
No, no and no again.
you are combining 3 false claims. That is total garbage.
Cool. No sunspots, hottest january ever.
can anyone explain to me why that is no problem for the theories being pondered here?
“can anyone explain to me why that is no problem for the theories being pondered here?” – sod
No. you never listen anyway, so what’s the point?
Concerning your “hottest january ever”…
I don’t think so.
Yes, DirkH, mental age about 11, …12 at the most.
Also in relation to “hottest january ever”…
“Deaths in Japan and Taiwan as record cold snap hits east Asia
At least 95 people die as record-low temperatures in region bring snow and ice cause flight cancellations and leave thousands stranded”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/25/deaths-japan-taiwan-snow-ice-chaos-asia
Ever heard of El Nino?
“Ever heard of El Nino?”
Yes.
all things being equal, new el ninos should rarely cause temperature records. But if the background is heating (the trend, you know?), then new records will mostly still happen during el ninos.
That is not difficult to understand, is it?
Sod says, “all things being equal, new el ninos should rarely cause temperature records. But if the background is heating (the trend, you know?), then new records will mostly still happen during el ninos.”
=========================================
Let us look at the trend. Two El Niño’s, both about equally strong, 1997-98 and 2015-16. So far the one 18 plus years ago produced a considerably warmer troposphere. So the trend, strong El Nino to strong El Nino, is cooling.
sod 12. February 2016 at 2:09 PM | Permalink | Reply
“all things being equal, new el ninos should rarely cause temperature records. But if the background is heating (the trend, you know?), then new records will mostly still happen during el ninos.
That is not difficult to understand, is it?”
You worldview is that of a simpleton. It is in fact very easy to understand. REALITY is different from the world you live in, though.
GISTEMP is a product that constantly cools the past. Of course the same event will produce a new record in this fraudulent product when it happens after several rounds of number-cooking again.
UAH/RSS OTOH go back only to 1979. That’s less than one full AMO cycle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation#/media/File:Amo_timeseries_1856-present.svg
“That is not difficult to understand, is it” – sod
You do seem to have more than average difficulty with the concepts involved.
Roy Spencer explains here that during an El Nino event “…Since the atmosphere responds to surface heating, anomalous warmth in the upper ocean layers gradually heats the atmosphere,…”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/01/what-causes-el-nino-warmth/
See also here…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/01/on-that-2015-record-warmest-claim/
…where he writes
” El Nino …that a goodly portion of the record warmth in 2015 was naturally induced, just as it was in previous record warm years.”
Interesting times ahead:-
‘Cosmic Rays are Intensifying’
“……Cosmic rays, which are accelerated toward Earth by distant supernova explosions and other violent events, are an important form of space weather. They can seed clouds, trigger lightning, and penetrate commercial airplanes. Indeed, our measurements show that someone flying back and forth across the continental USA, just once, can absorb as much ionizing cosmic radiation as 2 to 5 dental X-rays. Likewise, cosmic rays can affect mountain climbers, high-altitude drones, and astronauts onboard the International Space Station……”
http://news.spaceweather.com/cosmic-rays-are-intensifying/
Yes. In fact, I posted about the myself a couple of weeks ago.
https://notrickszone.com/2016/01/27/cold-shock-claims-dozens-of-lives-in-tropical-asia-amid-record-lows-taiwanese-see-snow-first-time-in-their-lives/comment-page-1/#comment-1078623
Oh, I just now see the most recent update reads…
Thanks for getting me to check that.
When comparing SC24 to SC5 one may need to be aware of how the modern method of counting is enhanced by better resolution, but according to this fellow (Geoff Sharp)
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
NOAA isn’t allowing for that.
See his sections “SC24 SPECK RATIO” and “THE LAYMAN’S COUNT METHOD & HISTORY” at that link, where he explains how he normalizes modern numbers to match the historical record. It makes sense, otherwise current data will result in conflicting conclusions about effects of solar activity on earth, using sunspots as a proxy.
Note that the SIDC’s treatment, apparently the international std (which appears to be the one used in the graph posted by Pierre?), while higher than G.S.’s, is significantly lower than NOAA’s inflated numbers. (NOAA’s numbers being usually 20-40% greater)
And since he’s been using the same method long before SC5, the fact that his numbers track SC5 so precisely indicates this is not an attempt to arbitrarily fit the curve.
sod uses “UAH” both times, is that an error?
Also, January was cold where I live (western North America), now the cold is in eastern North America.
For the near future climate change is slow. I’ll wait for more information.
Why are people looking at sunspots, an imperfect proxy at best, when daily solar irradiance is available via Colorado’s LASP???
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt
David Appell, why allways the same comment every month in relation to TSI vs. Sunspots? How do you want to make a comparison of the cyles 1…24 or a comparison of the average of the suns activity vs. the actual cycle? IMO the sunspots are the best proxy we have in longer timescales. So please stop your noise production!
Sunspots maybe imperfect, but right now it’s the best we have. Solar activity has a will of its own, or we haven’t been recording it long enough in the right way to say anything for certain. The sunspot activity was state of the art when taken, just like whatever we are doing today. Sometime in the future somebody will say the same thing about the info being recorded now. The very biggest problem is see for future researchers is the alterations that are occurring today.
The next 10 years will be very interesting. Aren’t you curious whether solar cycles play an important role in climate? Being that I don’t entirely believe the current temperature record, I’d say cooling has already begun.
Credibility is extremely important. If you are adjusting the the records that happen to support one side of a continuous debate, and done so in a fashion that props up global warming, then yes I am finding fault with it. In addition, it seems that efforts are in place to alter or change commonly agreed records of solar activity in hopes of discrediting it.
Thats what you’re doing, deflecting isn’t David.
NASA finds source of problem – fires specialist responsible for the PAUSE.
“They call me PAWS, because I…
…put the whammy on global warming for treats!” James Hansen said, if only he could be turned, we could use a talent like that.
Seriously, I wonder why Spencer and Christy, whose data it is, don’t subscribe to warming. As far as the land data go, Spencer addresses that and other issues here
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/01/on-that-2015-record-warmest-claim/
(note that his data don’t show warming, and won’t until more data are in that are as high or higher.)
Hes not alone in his criticism of NOAA’s contaminated data.
Yet another reason not to trust NOAA. They grossly inflate sunspot data compared to SIDC.
I see that warmists no longer talk about the many failed IPCC projections for the minimum .20C per decade warming and the 2007 specific .30C or MORE per decade warming projection of the first two decades of the century.
“For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.”
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
[…] Fonte: NoTricksZone […]
Both of the following graphs are from Kaltesonne.de
1. http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/erdling11.jpg
posted in a previous NTZ article.
2. http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/marv1-1024×603.jpg
posted above in this article.
All curves appear the same in shape, but in the most recent incarnation of the data, the numbers are all inflated.
I’m not comfortable with that without an explanation, which I suspect is that the changes are possibly the result of govt funded climatologists’ “adjustments?”
“I’m not comfortable with that without an explanation, which I suspect is that the changes are possibly the result of govt funded climatologists’ “adjustments?”
No. In the summer of 2015 was the release of a new sunspot-timeseries. See http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/aug/07/new-sunspot-analysis-shows-rising-global-temperatures-not-linked-to-solar-activity . From July 2015 on the “old” record was no more updated.Anyway: the relation of cycles after 1945 (“Waldmeier Discontinuity”) to the former ones was not changed on Kaltesonne from 2013 on.
@Frank
Thanks for the link. It does provide an explanation. (And Yes, a number of the authors are govt employees.) One can’t let lack of precision in the past hamper research today, as long as one is careful.
“…the relation of cycles after 1945 (“Waldmeier Discontinuity”) to the former ones was not changed on Kaltesonne from 2013 on.” – Frank
Yes. I wrote as much in my comment, i.e., “All curves appear the same in shape”
Note that I didn’t say Kaltesonnne changed it, but that it was probably done elsewhere. Thank you for providing me the “elsewhere.”
Perhaps that explains why Svensmark…
http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/IASTP/43/
…found that “… a comparison with the Northern Hemisphere land temperature during the last 130 years did show a remarkably good correlation with the smoothed curve of the varying solar cycle length (see Figure 1) indicating that this parameter was possibly a better indicator [better than sunspot number] of a solar activity variations that could affect the Earth’s climate (Friis-Christensen and Lassen, 1991). ”
Which isn’t at all changed, because normalizing past and present data upturns the sunspot-temperature apple cart, the cycle length wouldn’t be affected, and Svensmarks conclusions would seem to remain intact.
It’s ongoing work, but still promising.
UPDATE
See Nir Shaviv’s analysis here.
http://www.sciencebits.com/sunspots_2.0
errata
1. “blockquote” error put my finishing comments in with Dr. Shaviv’s
2. The post that was supposed to precede this one, needed for a more complete story, is below.
https://notrickszone.com/2016/02/10/solar-report-january-2016-current-solar-cycle-quietest-in-almost-200-years-as-triple-whammy-approaches/comment-page-1/#comment-1083726
John Ray has just posted about that article, and has some additional observations. See first post here.
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-record-year-2015-and-what-helped.html
In the part of the paper below the discussion of solar activity, the authors compare the data adjusted by T. Karl, and find that’s where the warming comes from.
They also ask why (I’m sure they know) NOAA used shoddy temperature measurements, while ignoring modern more accurate ones.
If they haven’t saved the original data, we’ll never know what the temperatures were, and they can say whatever they want about it.
Long past time to call this what it is, a govt sponsored criminal conspiracy.
I see there’s a dustup over that topic in the comments to Ari H’s fun article at WUWT
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/26/the-cult-of-climate-change-nee-global-warming/
Svalgaard was NOT amused. I do think he should have been a bit more graceful in his “corrections” to Ari H, though from what I’ve seen from him, “graceful” is not his style.
[…] Solar Report January 2016 …Current Solar Cycle Quietest In Almost 200 Years As “Triple Whammy” Approaches! The Sun in January 2016! By Frank Bosse and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt (Translated/edited by P Gosselin), No Tricks Zone, Feb 10, 2016 https://notrickszone.com/2016/02/10/… […]
Why are ye debating global average temp. It is meaningless in the context of understanding climate variability.
As Lindzen says, it is a residue, not a metric.
For example.
Taking the total average temp of your home will not tell you anything about the individual sources and changes in temperature around the house, much less why they happen, total average cant tell you if someone left a window open, or why they left it open, it cant tell you if someone forgot to turn off a heater and why.
It is one massive pointless misdirection, an intentional one.
If everyone debates GAT then they are not talking about how this whole thing is based purely on assumptions not science.
The CO2 increase, being man, is 100% assumption.
The temperature increase being mostly man, is an assumption.
That natural CO2 respiration is budget balanced.. an assumption, we cannot monitor natural CO2, and no historical record\proxy can even have the definition to show anything worth anything.
Can we get back tot he pure guesswork at the heart of this mess?
Assumptions
“…it is a residue, not a metric.” – Mark
First time I heard him say that, I realized just how far the warmists have been able to ‘pull the wool’ over so many people’s eyes, getting them so distracted over a non-issue that they lose focus on what’s really important.
I’m so delighted to discover that I’m not the only one who thinks that’s important! 🙂
[…] This post on SC24 is interesting: https://notrickszone.com/2016/02/10/solar-report-january-2016-current-solar-cycle-quietest-in-almost-… […]