Solar — Hide The Decline

Posted: August 11, 2015 by tchannon in Accountability, Analysis, Incompetence

Couple of days ago oldbrew posted an article highlighting an article at, one thing leads to another


Figure 1, Annotated copy of plot. from mis-rendering web page where mis-render covered the time scale.


Figure 2, screen capture from web browser showing misrendering hiding the time scale and that tripped “why?”

The caption makes claim of a comparison but makes no mention of omitting recent data which does differ between the two versions (see fig 6). Additionally the plot start is 1749 as the monthly time series but the data plotted is the annual time series not the monthly.


Figure 3, reproduction of the dubious work using WDC-SILO data except showing all the data, less the very early part as above.

The plotting format looks the same as used by SILO and the captions attributes SILO.


Figure 4, Example plot from SILO, same style, same font, no missing tick.



Figure 5, detail from the plot showing the figures for computation of end date. The missing ticks implies post plotting removal of marks via image editing software. I’m surprising the regular X-axis numbering does not included 2000. Competent plot software would not omit a tick. If the original was postscript, rather likely, that could have been edited. Perhaps there is a sensible explanation short of someone deliberately removing marks, tell me.

So what is going on?

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.

Press briefing? Implications?

The claim being made is this

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.

That is classic misdirection, doesn’t sit well with being caught red handed trying sleight of hand. A far more important question is the degree of correlation or a functional connection, omitted. The temperature records used by these people exhibit recently either a cessation or great muting of temperature rise. This correlates with changes solar cycle 23 and 24 which the author(s) hid. I consider this misconduct but that is just my opinion, the readers will have to decide for themselves.

An obvious question: what is the difference between the SSN series MK1 and MK2?



Figure 6, the difference between datasets MK1 and MK2 over the monthly data time span.

Excluding recent this is simple span change but the basis for the values eludes me. One and two thirds is reciprocal 0.6, the claimed reference change. Given a new number series any particular reference is as good as any other so all we are interested in is the relative values between the scale factors. Why then sqr root 2?

What is the reason for the rectangular section? There is general reference to poor data prior to that and details works done after then tending to constrain reasonable change. (such as Wilson (1998))

I don’t understand why SILO have changed their own published data by so much, what was wrong with their work?

Any cross checks on whether solar activity might do more than some seem to think?

How about measured directly on earth instead of what we see by light taking place millions of miles away?


Figure 7, aa geomagnetic index measured on earth since 1868. Data from ISGI (International Service of Geomagnetic Indices).

There is no excuse for withholding data you don’t like.

Post by Tim

  1. As I have said the new sunspot data is irrelevant when it comes to solar/climate connections.

    The AA index being much more relevant.

  2. craigm350 says:

    Reblogged this on the WeatherAction News Blog and commented:

  3. catweazle666 says:

    “There is no excuse for withholding data you don’t like.”

    How about replacing accurate data from the Argo buoys with inaccurate, inconsistent data from ship’s bucket measurements to try to hide the ‘pause’, as practised by Karl et al?

    Only in “Climate Science”…

  4. blob says:

    I bet they made the plot and exported it as some kind of vector image. Then they put it into illustrator/whatever to add captions (and possibly decided to cut out the rightmost data?). Anyway, at some point they deleted some part of the original plot image which was grouped with that tick mark. I have had similar issues in the past.

  5. tom0mason says:

    Now they wouldn’t put in these errors so that they correct them later. With later corrections that may alter the current (unimaged) levels with new ‘errors’ that would require later adjustment ‘recalibration’, then later still ‘recalibrate’ the past record, then still later ‘recalibrate’…

    Or maybe I’m just being a little too cynical, or is it that this has all been done before — hockey stick distractions while agencies recalibrate adjust(!) the temperature data.
    This is how the game of ‘settled science’ is being played, no?

    As Nir Shaviv says The Sunspots 2.0? Irrelevant. The Sun, still is!
    IMO it is lined-up to become ever less relevant.

  6. Whenever someone rearranges historic data to prove global warming, I suspect fraud.

  7. M Simon says:

    I wonder what the dying days of phlogiston were like?

  8. Geoff Sharp says:

    At the end of the day V2 is better than V1. But they could have done better. I am far from convinced for the 1840 to 1870 changes (LS told me they used a paper on spot area to show Wolf was wrong?) and it would have been better if they adjusted the post 1947 record down by 20% and not the 15% and other values after 1981. The Waldmeier Jump after 1947 does need to come out.

  9. oldbrew says:

    Talkshop referenced here [link below].

    ‘The point is that it hasn’t taken long for the climate change lobby to jump on the bandwagon in order to dismiss activity on the Sun as affecting global temperatures. This is of course total nonsense as the solar wind can pump lots of heat and energy into the atmosphere during CME events.’

  10. Paul Vaughan says:

    I flatly reject V2 and the corruption behind it.

  11. Geoff Sharp says:

    Paul Vaughan says:
    August 12, 2015 at 3:31 pm

    I flatly reject V2 and the corruption behind it.

    Paul, I think V2 has its problems, but it has to be better than V1. There is no doubt the Waldmeier Jump has to be removed, surely you agree?

  12. The solar / climate connection is still obvious even in the new version so I don’t see how the media can suggest that the sun is not responsible.

    As long as there is ANY variation in solar activity that correlates with climate changes it matters not how large or small the signal is.

    Unless the solar record is ALL flattened to match the Maunder Minimum the relevant signal remains present whatever Leif Svalgaard et al try to say.

  13. Dan Pangburn says:

    Engineering science proves CO2 has no significant effect on climate.

    The proof and identification of the two factors that do cause reported climate change (sunspot number is the only independent variable) are at (now with 5-year running-average smoothing of measured average global temperature (AGT), the near-perfect explanation of AGT since before 1900; R^2 = 0.97+).

  14. oldbrew says:

    Stephen W: ‘I don’t see how the media can suggest that the sun is not responsible.’

    That’s what they were told to say 😉

  15. Paul Vaughan says:

    Geoff Sharp (August 12, 2015 at 3:43 pm) wrote:
    “Paul, I think V2 has its problems, but it has to be better than V1. There is no doubt the Waldmeier Jump has to be removed, surely you agree?”

    Geoff, it’s simple:
    Adjustments made by untrustworthy political agents MUST be rejected.

  16. Geoff Sharp says:

    It’s not that simple Paul. I am at odds with most of what LS puts forward, he is the ultimate sophist. But the sunspot record after 1947 did change substantially because of one mans descision.

    Are you familiar with the Waldmeier Jump, which was the biggest change to sunspot counting regime?

  17. But the sunspot record after 1947 did change substantially because of one mans decision

    Geoff ,who cares as you said it was one man’s decision. Since when does one man decide what is valid and what is not valid when it comes to scientific endeavors?

    What we need to do is keep the old data and trash the new data.

    In the meantime you need to keep the Layman sunspot count alive and unchanged.

  18. Geoff Sharp says:

    You have it backwards Salvatore. Waldmeier in 1947 introduced a new counting system for the SIDC international sunspot number, he rated spots according to size so that a spot could have a value as high as 5 instead of the old single value used by all in the past. This artificially rose the sunspot record from 1947 to 2015 by around 20%. We are living in a dream world persisting with this method.

    The Waldmeier Jump is one of the main reasons for the Laymans Sunspot Count and it is good that it is now somewhat removed in V2. Like I said V2 could be done better and I would prefer they continue the V1 record in the interim alongside V2.

  19. Paul Vaughan says:

    Geoff, we won’t accept adjustments from a rude political activist who denies 1+1=2. Period.

  20. Geoff Sharp says:

    I actually was the person who alerted LS that the Waldmeier method was still in use…so look at it as my fault.

  21. Paul Vaughan says:

    Geoff, I won’t be blaming you for the devilish flaws of another character.

  22. Paul Vaughan says:

    Dan Pangburn, why do you make no mention whatsoever of the role of the SCL, SCD complex pair in ocean oscillation pacing?

  23. Geoff, thanks for the information.

    I have a question, which is why is it that the absolute area of sunspot coverage covering the sun is not used to determine sunspot activity? Why is there not an index for this?

    That to me would seem to be a much more objective way to go about getting a reading on the strength of sunspot activity on the solar surface.

  24. Geoff Sharp says:

    Salvatore, area is one metric, and then you can measure umbra strength within that area to get another value. That all makes sense and is one of the questions Waldmeier struggled with. But the sunspot record is about a standard over a 400 year time frame that began with a method not considering area and umbra.

    So it is important to continue the homogeneous record and not introduce new standards…start with a plan and continue that plan…otherwise set up a new metric outside of the sunspot number. You can’t have it both ways..

  25. Dan Pangburn says:

    Paul V – Any effect from SCL, SCD on ocean cycle pacing are implicitly accounted for and/or must find room in the less than 3% which remains unexplained.

  26. Paul Vaughan says:

    Dan Pangburn says:
    “Any effect from SCL, SCD on ocean cycle pacing are implicitly accounted for”

    key word there = implicitly

    A do-it-themself “ocean oscillations” narrative explains exactly SFA (sweet f__ all). Evasion of sun-climate 1+1=2 isn’t helping — quite the contrary.

    At times of regime shift we sometimes have to confront fence-sitters with:
    Are you part of the problem or part of the solution??

    People know the surface of the Earth is NOT uniform.
    They KNOW there’s differential heat capacity (don’t forget about latent!! hint: ICE!!).

    Heat a chunk of ice in one hemisphere.
    Heat a chunk of land or water in the other.
    Measure the surface temperature response.
    LO & BEHOLD!! God hath delivered miraculous DIFFERENTIAL response. OMG! from the “it’s simpler than we thought!” category. …now catch your breath from that simple revelation.

    Dan, it would be helpful if you would decide to be explicit about the SCL, SCD complex pair necessarily pacing multidecadal ocean oscillations. (Mathematically there’s no other possiblity, you’ll know IF you understand the basic geometry.)

    …Of course I may be missing something: Perhaps you’re prepared to argue for violation of one or both of the laws of large numbers &/or conservation of angular momentum?? …but I’m guessing not, in which case it’s just a matter of if/when you see the light (explicitly).

    …and not to pass up this opportunity to have some fun:
    Onlooking agents of the department of commerce: Yes I know (as has been explained to me patiently on more than one occasion) that there has to be a long-run strategy for eliminating the US debt to China …but let me just clarify once again that this can’t be it because it conclusively clarifies a fatal corruption of justice.

    Dan: Give it some thought. The main cost of acknowledging is you’ll be viciously harassed (by deception agents (some work undercover including here)) for daring to state 1+1=2.

    If you decide to play it socially & politically safe by not acknowledging sun-climate 1+1=2, we’ll be able to prove and acknowledge your (disappointing) contribution to climate injustice.

    I hope you’ll make the wise, enlightened choice Dan

    As my ancestors say in French:
    Bon Courage!

    P.S. I’m recommending that you be paid a very generous stipend if you pursue the arduous ethical high-road (meaning not being scared to state sun-climate 1+1=2, specifically the simple geometry of the SCL, SCD complex pair …and the consequent regional aberrations from sunspot integral).

  27. Paul Vaughan says:

    Solar Cycle Length (SCL) AND ICE:

    Rate of change of SCL = solar cycle deceleration (SCD) (blue curve here):

    …and the rate of change of SCD is the blue curve here (isostatic adjustment & mantle flow; orthogonal in time to sea level change):

    In the complex plane, those 3 curves are just a single curve describing the multivariate geophysical wave that’s necessarily descriptive of the beats of all known AND UNKNOWN terrestrial cycles. It literally can be no other way. We’re in the realm of GEOMETRIC PROOF of climate injustice and all that remains to be observed and documented is the nature & duration of mainstream administrative delay.

    department of commerce has miscalculated

  28. Paul Vaughan says:

    The cost of the miscalculation is measured in $ trillions.

  29. oldbrew says:

    Nobody can buy a climate. It’s an absurdity.

  30. Gail Combs says:

    It is not a matter of buying a climate, it is a matter of anticipating the climate going forward and adapting. Too bad the politicians are ‘adapting’ in exactly the wrong manner. Make you wonder if they are really that stupid or if they know something they are not about to tell the ‘Great Unwashed’

    “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” – Ted Turner, founder of CNN and the UN Foundation

    “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” – Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren —

    Now why would they be writing that in textbooks just as Shackelton found proof of the Milankovitch cycles. Just as Kukla and Matthews alerted President Richard Nixon. And when global cooling was already the main concern at a conference of the World Meteorological Organization and Unesco in 1961, a decade before.

  31. gjihad says:

    Reblogged this on Green Jihad.

  32. Paul Vaughan says:

    Have a look at the BS going on over at ce & wuwt TODAY. Let’s just say it: what pieces of sh*t. The Devil himself is NOT more evil.

  33. Dan Pangburn says:

    The near perfect (R*2 = 0.97+) match between calculated and measured average global temperatures since before 1900 demonstrates that all except less then 3% of relevant factors are accounted for. The only input to the equation is annual average daily sunspot number. Because no effect of SCL, SCD on ocean cycle pacing is explicitly accounted for any effect that it might have is either accounted for implicitly and/or must find room in the unexplained less-than 3%.

    Apparently all (or at least very nearly all) average global temperatures result from natural phenomena. Useful effort would be to determine what causes the net of ocean cycles and the solar cycles to be as observed.

  34. Dan Pangburn says:

    R*2 should be R^2

  35. M Simon says:

    Paul Vaughan says:
    August 15, 2015 at 5:58 am

    Links (or titles) would be good.

  36. Paul Vaughan says:

    @ M Simon

    This should clarify:

    Shaviv’s wise avoiding time-wasting engagement with rude, incompetent, darkly unfair judges.