Corrected sunspot history fails to find modern solar maximum

Posted: August 8, 2015 by oldbrew in Analysis, Dataset, Solar physics
Tags:
The 'before' version of sunspot numbers [Credit: Wikipedia]

The ‘before’ version of sunspot numbers [Credit: Wikipedia]

This result has been at least half-expected ever since the ‘revision’ of sunspot numbers was announced. The phrase ‘desired outcome’ springs to mind.

The Sunspot Number is a crucial tool used to study the solar dynamo, space weather and climate change, reports Phys.org. It has now been recalibrated and shows a consistent history of solar activity over the past few centuries. The new record has no significant long-term upward trend in solar activity since 1700, as was previously indicated. This suggests that rising global temperatures since the industrial revolution cannot be attributed to increased solar activity.

The analysis, its results and its implications for climate research were made public today at a press briefing at the International Astronomical Union (IAU) XXIX General Assembly, currently taking place in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.


The Maunder Minimum, between 1645 and 1715, when sunspots were scarce and the winters harsh, strongly suggests a link between solar activity and climate change. Until now there was a general consensus that solar activity has been trending upwards over the past 300 years (since the end of the Maunder Minimum), peaking in the late 20th century—called the Modern Grand Maximum by some.

This trend has led some to conclude that the Sun has played a significant role in modern climate change. However, a discrepancy between two parallel series of sunspot number counts has been a contentious issue among scientists for some time.

The two methods of counting the sunspot number—the Wolf Sunspot Number and the Group Sunspot Number—indicated significantly different levels of solar activity before about 1885 and also around 1945. With these discrepancies now eliminated, there is no longer any substantial difference between the two historical records.

The new correction of the sunspot number, called the Sunspot Number Version 2.0, led by Frédéric Clette (Director of the World Data Centre [WDC]-SILSO), Ed Cliver (National Solar Observatory) and Leif Svalgaard (Stanford University, California, USA), nullifies the claim that there has been a Modern Grand Maximum.

Full Phys.org report: Corrected sunspot history suggests climate change not due to natural solar trends.

Note: the ‘after’ version of the sunspots graphic appears in the above link.

Comments
  1. oldbrew says:

    ‘This suggests that rising global temperatures since the industrial revolution cannot be attributed to increased solar activity’

    Well it would ‘suggest’ that, wouldn’t it:/

    ‘Existing climate evolution models will need to be re-evaluated given this entirely new picture of the long-term evolution of solar activity’

    So generations of climatologists have been wasting their time analysing sunspots according to this.

  2. Colin says:

    Not sure how it can be “recalibrated” as there is nothing to calibrate against, other than modern sunspot numbers.
    Am I mistaken?
    [mod: Your comment got missed in automatic moderation, sorry it’s late. Tim]

  3. oldbrew says:
    August 8, 2015 at 10:15 pm

    ‘This suggests that rising global temperatures since the industrial revolution cannot be attributed to increased solar activity’

    “Well it would ‘suggest’ that, wouldn’t it :/” Yes!

    ‘Existing climate evolution models will need to be re-evaluated given this entirely new picture of the long-term evolution of solar activity’

    “So generations of climatologists have been wasting their time analysing sunspots according to this.”

    Generations of climAstologists also claim: ‘The Sunspot Number is a crucial tool’
    Crucial indeed. Now need more money to re-evaluate the broken models!

  4. oldbrew says:

    ‘The new record has no significant long-term upward trend in solar activity since 1700, as was previously indicated. This suggests that rising global temperatures since the industrial revolution cannot be attributed to increased solar activity.’

    The industrial revolution didn’t start in 1700 anyway. The whole thing reeks of propaganda.

  5. E.M.Smith says:

    Eyeballing the “new” chart it still looks to me like more area under the curve lately and slightly stronger peaks. The middle hump was pulled up but the peaks in it look sharper, like one or two data ponit making a spike.

    Looks to me like the claim of no modern maximum is over stated. More like 1850 not as low by a little and narrow peaky compared to now.

    Needs a math analysis to test that, though.

  6. Konrad says:

    How did I just know when I clicked on this sad story that the name “Leif Svalgaard” would appear?

    Dr. “Stamp it Flat” still hard at work….

    To his shame, when faced with the results from SORCE, showing significant solar spectral variability, he even tried to stamp the UV record flat. (His work on that was laughable).

    Ultimately, his “it’s not the sun” game can’t work. CO2 cannot be the culprit. CO2 is a radiative gas, both capable of absorbing and emitting LWIR. Adding radiative gases to our radiatively cooled atmosphere will not reduce its ability to cool the solar heated surface of our planet.

    Dr. Stamp it Flat tries to hide behind the “TSI variance of 0.1% is too low to be the cause of recent warming” foil. But that claim is bogus, based on modelling that treats the surface of the oceans as opaque with near equal SW absorptivity and LWIR emissivity. Both of these assumptions are proved false by the simplest of empirical experiments.

    The reality –

    both tubs of water have the same ability to absorb SW radiation and the same ability to cool by radiation, conduction and evaporation. The only difference is the depth of SW absorption. When exposed to equal sunlight, tub A rises to a higher temperature.

    Don’t trust me? Sod that! Trust the traditional scientific method and replicate the experiment for yourselves. (The deeper you make it, the better it works).The physics is very clear, the deeper radiation penetrates a liquid that is only being cooled from its surface, the greater the heating effect.

    Which solar frequency penetrates deepest into our oceans? UV. Which solar frequency varies most over and between solar cycles? UV.

    And if you need a mechanism in line with David Evan’s “notch filter hypothesis”, energy gain/loss below the ocean thermocline would be a good place to look. Now what solar radiation penetrates that deep and shows great variability? Let me think now….

    PS. I have been given no reason to ever regret what I wrote to Dr. Stamp it Flat in 2009 –
    http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php/topics/6231/Re_The_Solar_Climate_connectio#Post6231

  7. pochas says:

    I tend to agree that there was no “Modern Maximum,” only the first two-thirds of the current run-of-the-mill 180 year Jose cycle which began in 1900 and brought a series of six cycles with progressively increasing activity (solar cycles 14 through 19), followed by another four reasonably strong follow – on cycles now ending, comprising the second third of the cycle. The final 60 years will be chilly, leading up to the next cycle beginning in 2080. After that cycle we will finally get to what we have all been waiting for, a Modern Grand Maximum beginning in about 2300 and lasting 300 years, comparable to the Minoan (1200 BC), Roman (1 AD), and Medieval (1100 AD) warm periods. Until then we will just have to be patient.

    Can origin of the 2400-year cycle of solar activity be caused by solar inertial motion?
    I. Charvatova, Ann. Geophysicae 18 (2000)
    http://www.ann-geophys.net/18/399/2000/angeo-18-399-2000.pdf

    [reply] for a 2014 Charvatova paper see PRP link at top of this web page

  8. pochas says: August 9, 2015 at 5:31 am

    Can origin of the 2400-year cycle of solar activity be caused by solar inertial motion?
    I. Charvatova, Ann. Geophysicae 18 (2000)

    Yes! Please be careful of the word “caused”. Solar inertial motion seems to be caused by all of the orbital mass in near space wrunching around on “all” nearby other mass! The “dance” of the planets. Unobservable to all that think they know.

  9. Paul Vaughan says:

    If I wrote my assessment of LS, for sure it could not be allowed to pass moderation.
    It takes a tremendous amount of restraint to stop there.

  10. Paul Vaughan says:

    “This suggests that rising global temperatures since the industrial revolution cannot be attributed to increased solar activity”

    That’s propaganda.

    [reply] indeed

  11. Paul Vaughan says:

    The new sunspot numbers don’t make any difference to this:

  12. Bob Weber says:

    Using the new v2 monthly SSN data:

    The modern maximum in solar activity occurred from June 1935 to Nov 2004, 834 months (69.5 yrs), when v2 monthly SSNs averaged 109, as compared to the previous 69.5 years, between Dec 1865 and May 1935, when the SSNs averaged 65.7, which was a 69.5 year 65.6% increase in sunspot activity.

    Again with v2 yearly SSN data:

    The modern maximum in solar activity occurred from 1935.5 to 2004.5, a 70 year period, when v2 yearly SSNs averaged 108.5, as compared to a 65.8 per year average for the 70 years between 1865.5 and 1934.5, which was a 70 year 65% increase in sunspot activity.

    Take your pick- monthly or yearly data, 69.5 or 70 years, and either a 65.6% or 65% increase.

    Any way you slice it, there was a modern maximum in solar activity that lasted for about 70 years, when the Sun was 65% more active in terms of sunspot activity than the previous 70 years.

    Dr. Svalgaard is very foolish in taking the position that his eradication of a higher trend since 1700 project somehow eliminated the modern maximum.

    Nothing he did changes the FACT that solar activity was responsible for “global warming”.

    The Sun caused global warming, it caused the ‘pause’, and it’s about to cause global cooling.

    NOTHING Svalgaard does or says will change any of that.

  13. blob says:

    Paul Vaughan, your correlation is very interesting. Can you put it in a different format though? I mean an equation where average temperature is some function of solar activity. That would then qualify as an a priori prediction which is the holy grail of all scientific activity. Be careful. Everything is correlated with everything else when it comes to climate, this type of issue has driven many who attempt to find causality insane over the millenia.

  14. “solar activity appears to have remained relatively stable since the 1700s.” It doesn’t look that way to my eye.

  15. Paul Vaughan says:

    I literally could not be in the same room as LS, nor in the same room as anyone who would say anything positive about him.

  16. Paul Vaughan says:

    @ blob (August 9, 2015 at 7:30 am)

    Yes equation can be done.

  17. Paul Vaughan says:

    The changes to sunspot numbers can and should be dismissed on the grounds of who had a hand in them: a shameless activist with a clear political agenda.

  18. Paul Vaughan says:

    @ blob (August 9, 2015 at 7:30 am)

    The only agency I would share more information with is the Chinese government.

  19. Bob Weber says:

    The new SSNs should be considered dismisable because the most recent period of changes from 1980 to now are not well-correlated with F10.7cm flux as compared to the time previous to 1980.

    [reply] interesting

  20. P.A.Semi says:

    Now this is only a statement, that they wantonly recalibrated/modified historical records to better match the current AGW propaganda, that is in no way justified yet.

    Let’s wait, until there pops out some info about the method, used for the recalibration, to see, if it is valid and how much reliable their recalibration actually is… That they pronounced this on a respected assembly does not mean at all, that they used some valid method for their history modification…

    LS is by itself doubtful as a source, and if they totally omit any mention of the method used, it’s suspicious at least…

  21. oldbrew says:

    Solar cycle length is also important. Shorter cycles tend to have higher sunspot numbers, longer cycles lower numbers.

    LONG-TERM VARIABILITY IN THE LENGTH OF THE SOLAR CYCLE (2009 paper)

    ‘We also find a correspondence between the times of historic minima and the length of the sunspot cycle, such that the cycle length increases during the time when the number of spots is at a minimum. In particular, the cycle length was growing during the Maunder Minimum when almost no sunspots were visible on the Sun. Our study suggests that the length of the sunspot number cycle should increase gradually, on average, over the next ∼75 years, accompanied by a gradual decrease in the number of sunspots.’
    http://sites.stat.psu.edu/~richards/papers/sunspot.pdf

    The last complete cycle was solar cycle 23 at 11.7 years, but of the previous eight (SC 15 – SC 22) only one (SC 20 at 11.7y) was greater than 10.5 years.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_cycles

    In other words we’ve had a long run of mostly short solar cycles in the 20th century, and this is likely to change to restore the ~11 year average at some stage – which seems to be what’s happening now in the 21st century.

    Those longer cycles – if they take place – would imply lower solar activity on average than was the case in the 20th century, regardless of how sunspot numbers are measured.

  22. oldbrew says:

    ‘Relationship between Solar Cycle Length and Global Temperature Anomalies’

    ‘In conclusion, the upcoming decade will provide key data for research into both solar impacts on global climate and human‐induced global warming. Since CO2 levels have been rising during a time of increasing solar activity, untangling the impacts of each on the global climate system is difficult.  But, with rising CO2 levels and decreasing solar activity during the upcoming decade, the impacts of both should become more evident.’ 

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SolarCycleLengthandGlobalTemperatureAnomalies1.pdf

  23. Bob Weber says:

    oldbrew,

    I used wikipedia’s solar cycle lengths from your ‘List of solar cycles’ link for over a year before I found out last month that they’re mostly wrong. If you search for each cycle by itself in their wiki, you’ll find that the cycle start and end dates don’t match some of the same cycle data from the ‘List’! And many of those are wrong too when compared to the ‘official’ list.

    Then I found the ‘official’ list here http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/sunspot-numbers/cycle-data/table_cycle-dates_maximum-minimum.txt.

    The only problem I found with that is they list max-min years in decimals instead of by month-year.

    Actually meant to contact Wikipedia about that but haven’t yet…

    [reply] differences seem small?

  24. oldbrew says:

    PREDICTED SUNSPOT NUMBER AND RADIO FLUX – by NOAA
    ‘Predicted values are based on the consensus of the Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel’

    Shows continuous decline from 2015 (58.9) to the end of 2019 (4.1) where the predictions end.
    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/predicted-sunspot-number-and-radio-flux

    If that’s correct solar cycle 24 would be about 12 years long by the end of 2019, the longest since the 1850s when the Industrial Revolution was starting.

  25. Konrad says:

    Paul Vaughan says: August 9, 2015 at 6:45 am

    ”If I wrote my assessment of LS, for sure it could not be allowed to pass moderation.”
    His behaviour has certainly been decidedly political, rather than scientific. Worse his attacks on every study or metric or person who disputes his claim that solar variability has no effect on climate typically use only his own studies and papers as their foundation. Even worse, LS seems so beholden to the academic power games he is unable, or unwilling, to see that peer review and journal publication is part of scientific/academic bureaucracy and is not part of essential scientific method.

    Paul, it is possible to write an assessment without resort to profanity. (Although maybe not as satisfying or accurate.)

    Paul Vaughan says: August 9, 2015 at 9:18 am

    ”I literally could not be in the same room as LS, nor in the same room as anyone who would say anything positive about him.”
    For all his faults, LS was one of those that correctly predicted unusually low activity for SC 24. Of course, I am safely writing this from a room on the opposite side of the planet😉

  26. Bob Weber says:

    PA Semi,

    I too have been waiting to see if any data will be forthcoming on the SSN calibration, wrt the geomagnetic method Svalgaard says he used to determine older unobserved SSNs, on the post-1980 SSNs that I found don’t correlate as well with F10.7cm flux as pre-1980.

    His geomagnetic method involves correlating the diurnal change in the geomagnetic y-component with F10.7 and SSNs, as the geomagnetic y-component responds to the sunlight UV-induced ionospheric currents generated every day on the sun-facing side of the Earth. I want to see the same geomagnetic dataset that was used to calibrate older SSNs be used to calibrate them through to the present so we can see that the post-1980 changes reflected in v2 are right or not.

    This is by a man who thinks TSI only varies by 0.1%. That determination is bogus. It is based on SORCE TIM data from 2003 forward, when solar activity has been the lowest in 100 years! When you plot out F10.7 back to 1947 and overlay TSI with it’s minimum offset to the 2008/09 F10.7 minimum, any objective person who sees that will realize it doesn’t make sense that TSI would flatten out and stay within the same range (0.1%) that was measured from post-peak SC23 through SC24, when comparing SC24 to SC19, 21, 22, and even the peak of SC23, ie, much higher cycle peaks. A 0.1% variation is absolutely senseless.

    So do we take his word for it? I don’t. Either he has an agenda (funny how he always asks others if they have one!) or he isn’t as bright or competent as he and others think, or maybe all three.

    Last year he told me F10.7 was 14-day smoothed data, and TSI was daily. It is the exact opposite!

    TSI is measured every day, but we don’t see the data for today’s TSI for 7 days, because it’s smoothed over 14 days. F10.7 is measured and reported daily, with no smoothing.

    The last thing that gives me pause is there was a story about the release of the new numbers before they were released, where he and all the usual sycophants came around to bash anyone who dared question or assert that solar activity causes climate change. It was pathetic. Not one of the usual “skeptics” reserved judgment until they could see the numbers themselves. So they were not evaluating the data at all, just buying into it without question. I thought that was very odd.

    That’s a cult of personality for you!

  27. Bob Weber says:

    moderator,

    The differences may seem small, but when you’re trying to compare and contrast 24 solar cycle lengths, several changes of several months, or even one month either way changes those lengths, the SSN cycle averages, and for post-1947, F10.7cm cycle averages for any particular cycle, and those changes are important when comparing cycles to each other.

  28. ivan says:

    Take one political activist with an agenda, add several scientists in search for more funding, stir well and you end up with an attempt to rewrite facts.

    This is an obvious move to try and pump up some doom and gloom for the Paris meeting as well as an attempt to get more research money – in other words a propaganda exercise. Unfortunately a lot of people will take this announcement from authority as true and not look at the reasons behind the change.

    Anything that is changed that has climate change in the reason is immediately suspect and should be looked at with great care. While I know little about solar activity (most of it being learned from this site) I do know as an engineer that you don’t change data to fit your theory, you change your theory. When people refuse to change their theory when faced with real data to the contrary it shows that those people are seriously misguided or even paranoid and everything they say and produce should be considered junk science.

  29. Paul Vaughan says:

    oldbrew (August 9, 2015 at 9:54 am) stated the totally obvious:
    “Solar cycle length is also important.”

    The rate of change of that is the blue line here:

    I outlined the geometry in a document called ERSST EOF 1234.

    It offended some people, so they found a symmetry breakpoint around which to corrupt the ERSST covariance matrix (what a sleazy thing to do):

    Their strategy is 3-prong:
    1. F*** sunspot numbers.
    2. F*** ERSST.
    3. F*** Sun-Climate 101.

    The geometry illustrated in ERSST EOF 1234 is dead-simple, crystal clear, and based ONLY on the 2 heat engines (semi-annual equator-pole & annual interhemispheric).

    Faced with such clarity based on something REAL (simple heat engines), corrupt authorities panicked into full-on incremental history rewrite.

    With each increment of rewrite the aim would be further distortion of that which was clear before increment #1. But fortunately the evidence of what they did to ERSSTv4 is pulverizing.

    These people are suicide bomber political activists with a cause SO great. Some of them are also smart scientists. That makes them dangerous. They haven’t retracted ERSSTv4 despite their full awareness of the fatal flaw. The severe hubris probably guarantees a that a lot of damage will be done before they’re corrected.

  30. oldbrew says:

    PV: it won’t be so easy to ‘adjust’ solar cycle lengths to order – one hopes not anyway 😉

  31. Paul Vaughan says:

    I want to check that readers understand something. (This has to do with LS fatal error on the Findlater Jet and what we KNOW about terrestrial heat engines from the earth rotation record.)

    Is there a superior way to concisely convey the information summarized in the top panel by the combination of the thick black line & the roman numerals?

  32. Paul Vaughan says:

    oldbrew (August 9, 2015 at 12:46 pm) suggested:
    “PV: it won’t be so easy to ‘adjust’ solar cycle lengths to order – one hopes not anyway”

    They could contract me to do it. It would be easy.

    They’ll probably get stuck or persist until they have some success distorting it by trial-and-error. Actually I’ve seen no evidence that they have even the foggiest clue about how to measure SCL, nevermind how to systematically distort it in one clean go.

  33. Paul Vaughan says:

    I know a lot of you keep mentioning some meeting coming up in Paris — something to do with the IPCC I assume. I’ve noticed that people have been mentioning this meeting for months …& months …& months so I was surprised that it never happened yet. People seem to think it’s a big deal. I don’t give a sh*t about the meeting. No exploration of nature will occur at the meeting and no cool insights into the beauties of nature will come out of something so stale & bureaucratic. (How’s that for understatement?)

    …But for those of you for whom this is somehow some big deal, be aware that there’s NOTHING more crushing you could do than hammer them viciously with what I’ve illustrated about ERSSTv4 bias. If they haven’t retracted v4 by then they literally deserve h*ll. They’re progressively d*mning themselves exponentially with each day they refuse to retract.

    Someone should write up a killer article and unleash it like a baseball bat attacking brittle NOAA glass. It will be fun to watch. Just credit me clearly UPFRONT for being the first to point it out …but by all means otherwise go to town with pulverizing reach to a wide audience with a DEAD simple message.

    Maybe time the release date strategically to maximize embarrassment …and take the time between now & then to really carve the narrative for maximal devastation. Some wealthy patron should sponsor a stellar communicator to exact the fatal blow. Historically this will be a prime time highlight of the climate war, so this might as well be done well. My role in all this? An arms dealer it seems. I supplied the weapon and the ammunition. Someone ELSE can use it….

  34. P.A.Semi says:

    … more thinking about LS adjustments: the argument just of Leif S. few years ago against planets causing Sunspot cycles was, that the cycle is too much irregular but planets are too much regular to cause it… Now I’m glad to see, that the cycle is not so irregular, as it seemed, and will better fit with regular planetary cycles…

    The Sunspot cycle length and hence strength differences are caused by a cycle comming too soon, too out of it’s planetary forcing, and then having to wait to get in-sync (what was the cause of SC24 length and weakness), and meanwhile being too weak without forcing synchronization… The same story as is with the Chandler wobble…

    So still and even more eager to see, what justification is behind their adjustments toward this regularity…

    That the climate is driven by the Sun, as most of all energy on Earth is or was from the Sun, is not that much surprising…

    Well but it does not mean at all, that we should stop to protect nature and environment, because SOME of arguments of proponents of earth-friendly change in our behaviours were false…?!

    Do you see that cheap cheat of IPCC, meant to correct terrible human treatment of environment? What if it was a cheat of a cheat – throw in some false theory, than later let it be disproved and we are perfectly alibized from any future corrections…?

    —-
    PV – why is you southern ocean once warmer than average arround 1890 and once colder? On NH, the temperatures arround 1890 were really quite lower than in 20th century…

  35. Don B says:

    Fig. 2 on page 3 of Jasper Kirkby’s paper shows the correlation of Be10 and C14 with temperature.

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf

  36. oldbrew says:

    Abstract: Revisiting the Sunspot Number
    Frédéric Clette, Leif Svalgaard, José M. Vaquero, Edward W. Cliver
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11214-014-0074-2

    FAQ: Will the original Sunspot Number data series (V1.0) be continued in the future?

    SILSO Admin reply:
    With the introduction of the new series, we stop the extension of the original series as the new series gives a better number, cleaned from past defects. It turns out that the main defect in the series was the use of weighted counts by the main reference station in Zürich and now Locarno. As such counts were not used for the whole series before 1947, it produced a strong inhomogeneity. As we will now use unweighted counts following the original Wolf definition, it would be impossible to reconcile the newly computed monthly numbers with the original series, which is about 17% too high until May 2015. There would be an artificial step between May and June 2015.

    Therefore, the original series is kept accessible to users only for reference when making comparisons with past published studies that used the original sunspot number. So, just like the original Group Number series was never extended beyond 1995, the archived version 1.0 of the Sunspot Number will end in May 2015.

    http://www.sidc.be/silso/node/96

    SILSO = ‘Sunspot Index and Long-term Solar Observations’

  37. The new way of counting sunspots changes nothing. The simple fact is (as so many has been pointed out on this site) the fact the sun last century especially 1940-2000 was much more active then any other time since the Medieval Solar Maximum and further was GREATLY more active in contrast to the Maunder Minimum and Dalton Solar Minimum.

    In addition the metric that measure the magnetic activity of the sun shows beyond a doubt a major upward trend in that metric through out last century. In other words that metric much higher toward the end of the last century versus the beginning of the last century.

    Leif, is full of BS and his crusade trying to disconnect solar /climate relationships based on his latest ASININE adjustments to the sunspot records is an exercise in futility when it comes to trying to prove on solar /climate relationships.

    It does absolutely nothing to give any credence to that sort of a conclusion.

    Dream on Leif ,who really knows next to nothing about earth’s climatic system and how it works. He is quite ignorant when it comes to the science of climate and have bested him on this topic each and every time I have engaged him on this topic.

    He should stick to his field (astronomy) and not get involved in the field of climate science, a field which he has demonstrated complete ignorance in.

  38. Using the new v2 monthly SSN data:

    The modern maximum in solar activity occurred from June 1935 to Nov 2004, 834 months (69.5 yrs), when v2 monthly SSNs averaged 109, as compared to the previous 69.5 years, between Dec 1865 and May 1935, when the SSNs averaged 65.7, which was a 69.5 year 65.6% increase in sunspot activity.

    Bob Weber says which says it all.

  39. The changes to sunspot numbers can and should be dismissed on the grounds of who had a hand in them: a shameless activist with a clear political agenda.

    Paul says which is 100% correct.

  40. Jaime Jessop says:

    They cannot (yet) justifiably eliminate the obvious downturns in sunspot numbers which occurred at the Dalton and Maunder Minimums and which coincided (surprise, surprise) with a drop in global temperatures. So, they’ve gone for the next best thing; eliminate the upward trend in sunspot numbers since 1750 by erasing the modern Solar Maximum, so those pesky sceptics can’t lay claim to the Sun having anything at all to do with the long term upward trend in temperatures since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Then hold a public meeting to announce it to the world ahead of Paris 2015.

    What is it with Svalgaard? I can’t work him out. He has an overwhelming manic obsession with disowning the Sun totally from any influence on climate, not just now, but in the geological past. Did he get really bad sunburn as a kid maybe and resolve to get back at the big yellow fiery ball in the sky anyway he could?

  41. oldbrew says:

    Worth a look: ‘The solar magnetic activity band interaction and instabilities that shape quasi-periodic variability’ [2015 paper]

    http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150407/ncomms7491/full/ncomms7491.html

  42. oldbrew says:

    Jaime: misdirection is all part of the game😉

  43. gbaikie says:

    What happens if you double the height of the graph height?

  44. M Simon says:

    Konrad says:
    August 9, 2015 at 2:17 am

    Which solar frequency penetrates deepest into our oceans? UV.

    Thanks a LOT for that. I knew about SWs generally but was unaware UV penetrated deepest.

  45. Geoff Sharp says:

    I asked Svalgaard some questions on the SILSO V2 sunspot record but received little information. The Sunspot record has now been lost. I dont like how the Wolf values 1840-1870 were overridden based on one paper comparing sunspot areas. The Wolf/Wolfer relationship has now been lost.

    http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/thread/2192/creating-more-sunspots

    I also dont like how he has changed the Waldmeier factor after 1981, it seems to be based on his assumption that SILSO is undercounting since 1981. He uses his own F10.7 flux reconstruction to verify his claims.

    But the post 1947 record is not discounted enough which may upset some, it should be a 20-22% reduction from 1947, but is closer to 15% and even less during SC23/SC24.

    He also had no answer for the McCracken Graph I posted?

    http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/thread/1587/dr-svalgaard-ii?page=43

    I dont think anyone on the Babcock dynamo model team can answer this important question…

  46. PetterT says:

    Re. Leif Svalgaard from Hockeyschtick:
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.no/2014/08/its-sun_9.html
    Saturday, August 9, 2014
    It’s the Sun
    Solar physicist Dr. Leif Svalgaard has revised his reconstruction of sunspot observations over the past 400 years from 1611-2013. Plotting the “time integral” of sunspot numbers from Dr. Svalgaard’s data shows a significant increase in accumulated solar energy beginning during the 1700’s and continuing through and after the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1850. After a ~30 year hiatus, accumulated solar energy resumes a “hockey stick” rise for the remainder of the 20th century, followed by a decline beginning in 2004, all of which show remarkable correspondence to the HADCRU3 global temperature record:
    The time integral of solar activity and ocean oscillations [which are also driven by solar activity] can explain 95% of climate change over the past 400 years..

  47. tom0mason says:

    So papers such as this —
    “The anomalous ionosphere between solar cycles 23 and 24 ” by Stanley Solomon, Thomas Woods, Leonid Didkovsky and John Emmert (available at http://nldr.library.ucar.edu/repository/assets/osgc/OSGC-000-000-020-002.pdf )
    … are all wrong? Even though the indications from satellite operators concur well with the calculations of the thermosperic changes tracking solar radiance change.

  48. oldbrew says:

    If temperatures do show any signs of a decline in the years ahead the ‘constant TSI’ believers won’t be able to blame the Sun.

  49. p.g.sharrow says:

    “The old records are not reliable” “Modern” techniques record lower results then the old ways did. We KNOW that the Real Data can not change therefore, we have adjusted the old records so they match the new ones. Proving that the Solar output does not change!!

    Has their paymaster demanded these results? Or do they believe we are all stupid fools.

    After nearly 70 years out in the sun, my hide and eyes tell me that the sunlight has less “Bite” then it had in the late1950s and early 70s. About as scientific as Svalgaard’s logic… pg

  50. M Simon says:

    OB @ 3:33

    They will have choices. Change their minds. Die in error.

  51. Paul Vaughan says:

    Geoff Sharp (August 10, 2015 at 3:42 am) suggested:
    “The Sunspot record has now been lost. I dont like how the Wolf values 1840-1870 were overridden based on one paper comparing sunspot areas. The Wolf/Wolfer relationship has now been lost.”

    Has the original record been removed from the net?
    I would suggest simply disregarding whatever they’re trying to do …unless they try to FORCE the issue: The real evil would be if they try to deny access by wiping the CLEAN original records off a DIRTIED net. Even if they stop updating the earlier versions, that’s a crime; that would confirm that they INTEND to be as sleazy as possible.
    Instinct: I don’t trust these people.
    I do suspect they’ll try to make SURE people can NO longer use the clean records.
    These characters seem primarily concerned with TELLING people what to think and I suspect they’re going to go out of their way to PREVENT alternatives like independent critical thinking. The central theme in their campaign is CONTROL.
    We shouldn’t have to worry about TERMINATION OF ACCESS to the clean sunspot number record — nor ERSSTv3b at KNMI Climate Explorer. All the records should just be there side-by-side. What’s so hard about that??? You see? Just keep all of the UPDATED records there in parallel. We need to aggressively test how WEASELLY they get when we make that SIMPLE, EASY suggestion. WHY CAN’T YOU JUST KEEP ALL OF THE REGULARLY UPDATED VERSIONS SIDE-BY-SIDE IN PARALLEL? The answer OF COURSE is that there is NO GOOD reason why they can’t. There’s only a BAD reason and that’s SHAMELESS POLITICAL ACTIVISM along with a pathologically merciless intent to thought police.
    They’re outrageous and they’re attempting a reign of terror. We have to live in fear of destruction of that which is clean & pure to make way for enforced occupation by that which is dirty & sleazy.
    …and let’s all remember that wuwt strongly supports these peoples’ bid to ASSUME CONTROL.
    It becomes an order of magnitude more creepy if they try to argue on some administrative grounds that CLEAN records should not be updated and kept openly accessible in parallel. Watch for TELL-TALE weaseling that the goal is not only to control what the public thinks but also TO PREVENT the public from having the option to think critically & independently.

    The bottom line:
    It’s a SLIPPERY slope if we lose the right to access regularly updated clean records.

    It’s enough cause to set up an NGO watchdog funded by wealthy patrons. The goals I’ve outlined above are EASILY achievable if pursued by capable staff with sufficient resources. We CAN keep history revision in check. I suggest that someone found an organization with membership, newsletters, whatever. It will be a slippery slope if the the thought police are allowed to block access to UPDATED clean records.


    How’s that for advocacy?
    worth putting in BOLD CAPITALS (like Washington DC which no doubt is the campaign base)

    Someone had to say it like this to jumpstart cleaner thinking about what we should and should not accept.

  52. Paul Vaughan says:

    PetterT (August 10, 2015 at 9:28 am) wrote:
    “[…] from Hockeyschtick:
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.no/2014/08/its-sun_9.html
    The time integral of solar activity and ocean oscillations [which are also driven by solar activity] can explain 95% of climate change over the past 400 years..”

    That’s based on smoothing interannual variations.
    It’s 94% after (instead) accounting for ENSO & BDO.

    Be aware:

    The “ocean oscillations” are paced by solar cycle deceleration. It’s dead simple and it depends ON NOTHING OTHER THAN SIMPLE HEAT ENGINES (semi-annual equator-pole & annual interhemispheric).

    They can try to run but they can’t hide from something as simple as heat engines.

    The residual 6% bears NO resemblance WHATSOEVER to CO2.
    All the stuff we hear about CO2 is theory. The observations don’t support it. This suggests false assumptions in the theory.

  53. Paul Vaughan says:

    Folks: A network of volunteers isn’t going to be able to keep these people in check. They’re too sophisticated. A powerful NGO is needed and it woN’T work if staffing gets corrupted by patronage appointments. With the right staff it will be possible to give mainstream climate science a merciless schooling. I propose basing the NGO in my hometown where we can better access reliable Chinese talent & expertise.

    [reply] are you in China?

  54. oldbrew says:

    pg: ‘Has their paymaster demanded these results? Or do they believe we are all stupid fools.’

    A bit of both probably🙂

    They will stand up and say ‘Our data says…blah blah’ knowing that most of the public won’t know anything about the history, origin etc. of such data. Or if the public do know something, they’ll just say – as we already see – that it was full of errors and they ‘fixed’ them.

  55. oldbrew says:

    PV says: ‘Has the original record been removed from the net?’

    No, it’s here – up to cycle 20 only for the ‘old’ version (i.e. pre July 2015).
    http://www.solen.info/solar/cycles1_to_present.html

  56. M Simon says:

    There will come a point where “reality” and fact are so divergent that covering will be near impossible. It will be a scandal. We are a ways from there. Five to ten years.

  57. oldbrew says:

    It’s like the old George Burns joke: “Sincerity – if you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”
    http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/128348-sincerity—if-you-can-fake-that-you-ve-got-it

    Replace ‘sincerity’ with ‘data’.

  58. My take on Leif’s sunspot revision is garbage in ,garbage out.

    Meaning it does not matter as far as proving or not proving a solar/climate connection.

    IT IS MEANINGLESS!

  59. What will matter is how the sun varies going forward and what kind of a climate reaction occurs.

    Changing past sunspot records is meaningless just like the manipulation of past temperature records.

    We in the know, know better then to go for their BS.

  60. Gail Combs says:

    M Simon,

    On the penetration of sunlight into the ocean I like these graphs:

    And a close-up from a different source:

  61. Anything is possible says:

    Nir Shaviv’s take on this :

    http://www.sciencebits.com/sunspots_2.0

  62. Gail Combs says:

    A bit of interesting Info that I think you guys may not be aware of:

    Usoskin et al., (2007). put the center of the Grand Maximum at 1960 with a duration of ~80 years (Perlim. estimate)

    Ice cores from the Freemont Glacier in Wyoming show it went from Little Ice Age cold to Modern Warming warm in the ten years between 1845 and 1855. Looks like the warming out of the Little Ice Age was not exactly smooth but instead was a jump.

    ABSTRACT
    An ice core removed from the Upper Fremont Glacier in Wyoming provides evidence for abrupt climate change during the mid-1800s….

    At a depth of 152 m the refined age-depth profile shows good agreement (1736±10 A.D.) with the 14C age date (1729±95 A.D.). The δ18O profile of the Upper Fremont Glacier (UFG) ice core indicates a change in climate known as the Little Ice Age (LIA)….

    At this depth, the age-depth profile predicts an age of 1845 A.D. Results indicate the termination of the LIA was abrupt with a major climatic shift to warmer temperatures around 1845 A.D. and continuing to present day. Prediction limits (error bars) calculated for the profile ages are ±10 years (90% confidence level). Thus a conservative estimate for the time taken to complete the LIA climatic shift to present-day climate is about 10 years, suggesting the LIA termination in alpine regions of central North America may have occurred on a relatively short (decadal) timescale.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999JD901095/full

    Another paper that maybe of major interest as the solar activity declines:
    Instability of climate and vegetation dynamics in Central and Eastern Europe during the final stage of the Last Interglacial (Eemian, Mikulino) and Early Glaciation
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618209001475

    Abstract

    In terrestrial records from Central and Eastern Europe the end of the Last Interglacial seems to be characterized by evident climatic and environmental instabilities recorded by geochemical and vegetation indicators. The transition (MIS 5e/5d) from the Last Interglacial (Eemian, Mikulino) to the Early Last Glacial (Early Weichselian, Early Valdai) is marked by at least two warming events as observed in geochemical data on the lake sediment profiles of Central (Gröbern, Neumark–Nord, Klinge) and of Eastern Europe (Ples). Results of palynological studies of all these sequences indicate simultaneously a strong increase of environmental oscillations during the very end of the Last Interglacial and the beginning of the Last Glaciation. This paper discusses possible correlations of these events between regions in Central and Eastern Europe. The pronounced climate and environment instability during the interglacial/glacial transition could be consistent with the assumption that it is about a natural phenomenon, characteristic for transitional stages. Taking into consideration that currently observed “human-induced” global warming coincides with the natural trend to cooling, the study of such transitional stages is important for understanding the underlying processes of the climate changes.

  63. Gail Combs says:

    At one point when arguing with L.S. at WUWT, in exasperation I suggested he take up the matter directly with Dr. Niv Shaviv. He never did.

    Interesting that L.S. is only seen at WUWT. One would think keeping the luck warmers on the straight and narrow path was a paid assignment and not a willing activity on his part.

    [reply] that might imply something about WUWT, no?

  64. Gail Combs says:

    In looking at Dr. Shaviv’s figure 2 and figure 3, It would seem there was a bit of a sudden increase in solar activity in the mid 1800’s Perhaps that explains the sudden warming shown in the Freemont Glacier.

  65. oldbrew says:

    Gail Combs says: ‘Usoskin et al., (2007). put the center of the Grand Maximum at 1960 with a duration of ~80 years (Perlim. estimate)’

    This graph supports that perhaps – the 1960 part at least.

    Of course those who think the whole sunspot record is ‘flat’ or whatever wouldn’t agree.

  66. Geoff Sharp says:

    The major problem is after July 1 2015 the old method of counting spots is no longer recorded. So there will be no way of continuing the V1 record. Of interest as seen on my comparison graph earlier is the moving conversion factor applied after 1981, I am wondering how they will now keep the V2 records homogeneous as they supposedly won’t need a conversion factor anymore?

    The V1 record is dead. We have been told what record to use.

  67. Gail Combs says:

    oldbrew, If you look at cycle 9? (~1840) and apply Dr Evans Notch Delay solar theory (11 year delay) you come out with the sudden temperature change from the Little Ice Age to modern temps around 1845 A.D. as recorded in the Upper Fremont Glacier.

    No wonder L.S. wants to stomp all over that record!

  68. Gail Combs says:

    Answer to the [reply]

    There is one person who always shows to defend the CO2 record but never shows any other time. that would be Englebeen. Zeke and the Mosh pup show to defend the temperature adjustments and L.S. only shows to stomp on the solar record. I think they have it covered quite well. (R.Gates used to show to defend the Arctic Ice.)

    The attacks on you, Steve Goddard and on Dr.Evan were more than I could stomach.

    A bit of the info I dug up that may be of interest:
    Judith Curry
    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/10/the-global-temperature-record-is-meaningless-garbage/#comment-489761
    Peter Webster (Judith Curry’s business partner)
    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/10/the-global-temperature-record-is-meaningless-garbage/#comment-489803

  69. Gail Combs says:

    As long as we are on the subject of L. S. He is at the same school (Stanford) as Paul R. Ehrlich, co-author of Eco-science and The Population Bomb. Ehrlich has now dived deep into Alice’s rabbit hole.

    Stanford researcher declares that the sixth mass extinction is here

    Paul Ehrlich and others use highly conservative estimates to prove that species are disappearing faster than at any time since the dinosaurs’ demise.

    here is no longer any doubt: We are entering a mass extinction that threatens humanity’s existence.

    That is the bad news at the center of a new study by a group of scientists including Paul Ehrlich, the Bing Professor of Population Studies in biology and a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. Ehrlich and his co-authors call for fast action to conserve threatened species, populations and habitat, but warn that the window of opportunity is rapidly closing…..

    Well now we know what balloon the Alarmists are going to try and float next.

    Don’t forget that Obummer’s Science Czar was Ehrlich’s co-author on those two pieces of horror fiction.

  70. Paul Vaughan says:

    Gail Combs (August 10, 2015 at 10:47 pm)
    “[…] One would think keeping the luck warmers on the straight and narrow path was a paid assignment and not a willing activity on his part.”

    “[reply] that might imply something about WUWT, no?”

    I’ve been waiting for years to observe people starting to clue in. Whether by accident or design, the wuwt thought-policing mission increments people towards the creepy US climate agenda (really an economic & security agenda). You don’t need a conspiracy where a carrot will suffice? I would suggest that conspiracies and carrots are factors in this case. The narrative promoted at wuwt requires violation of one or both of the laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum. That’s too creepy.

    – –

    “[reply] are you in China?”

    I can only wish things were going that well! …but at least 1/3 of our population here helps make it feel like home. They’re some of the best. In spirit: Yes.

  71. Paul Vaughan says:

    Geoff Sharp (August 11, 2015 at 12:03 am) wrote:
    “The major problem is after July 1 2015 the old method of counting spots is no longer recorded. So there will be no way of continuing the V1 record. Of interest as seen on my comparison graph earlier is the moving conversion factor applied after 1981, I am wondering how they will now keep the V2 records homogeneous as they supposedly won’t need a conversion factor anymore?

    The V1 record is dead. We have been told what record to use.”

    I reject the coercion about what record to use. V1 isn’t dead. For now it’s being hidden by some rude people with a political agenda …and that’s not acceptable. It’s the people — not the record — that are DUE FOR CORRECTION.

    oldbrew says (August 10, 2015 at 7:28 pm) wrote:
    “PV says: ‘Has the original record been removed from the net?’

    No, it’s here – up to cycle 20 only for the ‘old’ version (i.e. pre July 2015).
    http://www.solen.info/solar/cycles1_to_present.html

    BUT …and this is KEY:
    It’s NOT being UPDATED.

    …and that’s just not cool.

  72. Paul Vaughan says:

    P.A.Semi (August 9, 2015 at 2:29 pm) wrote:
    “PV – why is you southern ocean once warmer than average arround 1890 and once colder? On NH, the temperatures arround 1890 were really quite lower than in 20th century…”

    That’s what the record shows.
    Remember that ERSST PCs 3 & 4 are interhemispheric contrasts.

    Some background:
    ERSST EOF 1234
    heat engine cyclic volatility (anyone deeply understanding Dickey & Keppenne’s (NASA JPL 1997) Figure 3a & 3b firsthand will harshly DISMISS wuwt thought-policing)

  73. M Simon says:

    Gail Combs says:
    August 10, 2015 at 10:20 pm

    Thanks! Very helpful.

  74. Gail Combs says:

    Paul Vaughan says: “….I’ve been waiting for years to observe people starting to clue in….”
    …………………….

    I and some others I conversed with in private e-mails noticed the Trojan-Horse gatekeepers many years ago but were too polite to mention it on the net. (And thus get kicked off WUWT)

    I had my own personal troll chasing me for years every time I brought up the fact CAGW was political and the goal was Agenda 21. At least I managed to get that concept accepted at WUWT.

    WUWT even put up Dr. Ball’s Overpopulation: The Fallacy Behind The Fallacy Of Global Warming in January 2014, although the reception was mixed.

  75. Paul Vaughan says:

    83% of climate:
    • sunspot integral
    • multidecadal regional aberrations from sunspot integral paced by SCL, SCD complex pair
    (Wyatt tried to call the latter a “stadium wave” but stubbornly refused to acknowledge that this mulifaceted hydrological phenomenon is paced in aggregate by solar cycle length changes.)

    Then after that it’s down to subtleties (demanding advanced audience).

    Semi, here’s another link to help piece coupling strength into the context of periodically synchronized heliocentric & barycentric volatility:

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/why-pendulums-swing-in-harmony-new-theory/comment-page-1/#comment-104518

    The implication of the combination of Dickey & Keppenne’s (NASA JPL 1997) Figure 3a & Figure 3b:

    Mainstream statistical inference assumptions are patently false. The semi-annual equator-pole & annual interhemispheric heat engines do not have the falsely assumed stationary variance structure.

    The high frequency component bounded by the bidecadal J-S envelope is 0.54243476 years.

    The beat with the terrestrial year is:
    (1)*(0.54243476) / (1 – 0.54243476)
    = 1.1854807 years = 432.9875671 days (Chandler wobble period)

    Mainstream climate “scientists” should first explain the celestial origins of QBO.

  76. Paul Vaughan says:

    Gail, I don’t know anything about “Agenda 21”, but I do know that NATO & Russia (due to geography) are particularly vulnerable to solar cycle length change and I can see how this might convince those responsible for military & economic security of a need to deliberately corrupt geophysical data on purely strategic grounds.

    I wonder if the growing US Hispanic population is more aware of some of the relevant history:

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/suggestions-12/comment-page-1/#comment-104203

    It’s posturing. America can’t appear vulnerable to something beyond America’s control (the sun).

    The next thing to watch for is an eye to strategically corrupt decadal cyclic volatility in publicly available daily earth rotation records …but that’s trickier because there are guidance & navigation liabilities. It isn’t feasible to hide the solar cycle in thermospheric density data (which are low-level classified, but effectively public because all you have to do is register) …but a talented individual who really knew what they were doing could — for example — hide this:

    …But I’m not sure how that would affect — for example — private companies relying on accurate records for applications like GPS …but it would certainly be feasible for motivated parties with adequate resources to explore the impacts.

    With the geophysical shifts tied to the next harsh change in solar cycle length (and the related domino effects for agriculture, economy, etc.), a major (global) geopolitical shift will be inevitable unless China, Russia, Europe, & USA do inhumanly-talented cooperative contingency planning. It could be interesting to see how they fare.

  77. Paul Vaughan says:

    Let’s remember that with the ice & water movements in this complex (as in complex numbers) multi-faceted multidecadal hydrologic cycle, there’s mantle flow with isostatic adjustment to changes in crust loading:

    Western Europe is center stage.

    The blue curve in that graph and the SCD & SCL curves illustrated above ARE ALL THE SAME CURVE …just looking from different (rotated) perspectives in the complex plane. Mathematically they’re a single entity and they literally DEFINE how ALL terrestrial cycles (known AND UNKNOWN) change beats with the solar cycle.

    For a steep fee:

    Sunspot & SST vandals can contract me to destroy ALL of these correlations with a single simple adjustment (…that they won’t figure out while stubbornly operating on false assumptions that fail elementary diagnostics).

  78. Paul Vaughan says:

    The ONLY records in which I’ve EVER found CRYSTAL CLEAR centennial-timescale CO2 signals:

    Mann‘s temperature reconstructions!

    (sarc) Hmm… what possibly could have contributed to ~1800-1820 geophysical instability??
    No clues on the radar… Yep… we’ll just turn a blind eye and get back to imagining that CO2 was somehow responsible for the timing of WWI & WWII… (/sarc)

  79. oldbrew says:

    The only thing they don’t want to flatten has flattened itself, hence the ‘pause’. Unlucky🙂

  80. Gail Combs says:

    Paul Vaughan,
    As far as I can tell, Agenda -21 is a mask for a major land grab. The goal is to move everyone into tiny apartments in cities with no transportation. This is a quick explanation link. Your food is limited to a hundred mile radius of that city.

    Now add a LIA or the big drop and you have starvation and death because the city types have no skills and no transportation. Just to make sure they die you have ‘Pleistocene Rewilding’ planned with Asiatic cheetah, Asiatic lion, African lion, the Siberian tiger and dhole. The Red wolf, Coyotes, Panther and Melanistic leopards have already been introduced in my area. Just the rumors will keep the city types in the cities killing each other instead of leaving.

    In the 1960s early 1970s Shackleton and others found evidence the Milancovitch type cycles existed. More important, that the end of the Holocene was due. Straight after that you had the Club of Rome propaganda and Maurice Strong at the UN First Earth Summit screaming about Global Warming. (The 88 years Wolf-Gleissberg cycle was already known.)

    I am very sure the Elite are well aware that CAGW is a giant hoax and are busy sucking up as much wealth as they can and transferring that wealth, factories and technology to more equator-ward climes. CAGW is a really great excuse for confiscating farmland in Mexico, South America and Africa. “Interdependence” is a great excuse for the technology transfer from the USA to China. Chasing the Dragon: Clinton’s China Policy describes the wholesale sellout of the USA by Clinton. Just add in his signing the World Trade Organization treaty, getting China into the WTO and the five banking laws that crashed not only the USA but the world economy in 2008 and he should have been brought up on charges of treason and hung. Yet his wife is now running for president.

    On top of that you have the current US president and MSM stirring up racial tensions, race baiting, military build-up of the police, organizing of the police under the Department of Homeland Security and the planned coal plant shutdowns mainly along the heavily populated east coast. All you have to do is look at history to know what will happen with a poor economy and high racial tension when the lights go out..

    1977, Massive Blackout Plunges New York Into Riot
    The entire city of New York was blacked out, parts of it for more than 24 hours. 1,616 stores were looted or trashed, over 1,000 fires set, 550 police officers were injured and 4,500 looters were arrested. Looting and vandalism was estimated at $300 million.

    Once the cities are burned out messes you move on to what is happening in Christchurch NZ. Confiscate ALL property and rebuild an Agenda 21 type city. In the mean time you have gotten rid of a lot of useless unproductive population without cutting social services and you have taken over the government (martial law) and done away with democracy.

    thedemiseofchristchurch(DOT)com/2012/11/29/hello-world/

    (My focus was the USA but the EU is similar.)

  81. Paul Vaughan says:

    Gail, wuwt is corrupt. Just walk away.

  82. tchannon says:

    I prefer it Paul if the door was left ajar unless there is clear evidence of wilful misbehaviour. You probably mean you think they are misguided or mistaken, whoever they might mean. The possibility exists that a subtle tightrope is being walked too, I won’t explain in public.

    There are a number of ways of looking at what is going on, one of which is holding a lot hotheads away from where they would waste other people’s time.🙂

    I guess WUWT became as it is from growing stale, there is only so much of the same before that happens, same this place. Also remember Watts is probably exhausted, it gets harder as you get older.

    Diplomacy. The effect of name calling is chilling on serious people who matter, a reason why for example this site is so rarely referenced in the public media.

  83. Paul Vaughan says:

    Yesterday’s News:
    Tightrope walker fell: sensible people unsurprised

  84. oldbrew says:

    From an Abstract: ‘The power and the variance of the 22-year Hale cycle increases during grand maxima and decreases during grand minima, compared to periods characterized by moderate activity levels.’
    http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2015/05/aa24212-14/aa24212-14.html

    ‘Conclusions. We present the first reconstruction of the occurrence of grand solar maxima and minima during the Holocene based on simultaneous changes in records of past solar variability derived from tree-ring 14C and ice-core 10Be, respectively. This robust determination of the occurrence of grand solar minima and maxima periods will enable systematic investigations of the influence of grand solar minima and maxima episodes on Earth’s climate.’

    Abstract: Evolution of the solar irradiance during the Holocene

    ‘Aims. We present a physically consistent reconstruction of the total solar irradiance for the Holocene.’

    ‘Conclusions. We present the first physics-based reconstruction of the total solar irradiance over the Holocene, which will be of interest for studies of climate change over the last 11 500 years. The reconstruction indicates that the decadally averaged total solar irradiance ranges over approximately 1.5 W/m2 from grand maxima to grand minima.’
    http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2011/07/aa15843-10/aa15843-10.html

  85. Paul Vaughan says:

    tightrope walking while exhausted?

    inadvisable

  86. Paul Vaughan says:

    tchannon (August 12, 2015 at 3:29 pm)
    […] clear evidence of wilful misbehaviour”

    years worth of denial that 1+1=2 observed

    I call corrupt judging.