405-yr sunspot record gets major revision

New adaptive optics reveals greater sunspot detail. Credit/Big Bear Solar Observatory (BBSO)

Transformation to revolutionize understanding of the sun’s roll in long-term climate studies 

Austin, July 8, 2015 – The longest continuously monitored daily measurement in all of science, the 405-year solar sunspot record, underwent a complete overhaul for the first time since it was created by Swiss astronomer Rudolf Wolf in 1849. The overhaul went into effect July 1st.

For the very first time, the sunspot record is properly calibrated to bring internal consistency over its entire 405-year history, dating back to Galileo and the invention of the telescope. Yet, this important change to one of science’s most fundamental measurements went literally unnoticed.

The newly calibrated record has implications in many diverse scientific disciplines ranging from climate science to manned spaceflight.

It’s been known for decades there are inconsistencies in the sunspot record. Forty of the world’s top solar physicists spent the last four years researching the problem. Their work was conducted in a series of meetings modestly called the “SSN Workshops“. Their results were published in an historic paper titled, “Revisiting the Sunspot Number: A 400-Year Perspective on the Solar Cycle” – F. Clette, et al., Space Science Reviews, Volume 186, Issue 1-4, pp. 35-103.

Hundreds of papers written over the last 166 years are directly affected by the changes. Conclusions will have to be revisited, some will be invalidated completely. Ultimately, though, it’ll lead to a better understanding of how subtle changes on the sun are affecting life as we know it here on earth.

Group Number: The Better Measure of Solar Activity

Two sunspot record time series were recalibrated. The first is the traditional International Sunspot Number (ISN) record most people are familiar with. The second is the more physically meaningful group number first documented by Hoyt and Schatten in 1998.

Groups have always been counted as part of the International Sunspot Number (ISN). Hoyt and Schatten, recognizing their special nature, separated them out into their own time series then reconstructed it back to 1610. The newly released group number update redefines and corrects defects in the original 1998 version.

The group number is important for three reasons:

  1. It’s easier and more accurate counting groups than counting individual sunspots
  2. The group number series can reliably be extended further back in time
  3. Most solar activity is associated with groups, not individual spots

Group number time series best illustrates sunspot record changes. (Credit/Steve Davidson, WDC/SILSO data)

Individual spot and group count changes include:

  • All ISN counts are increased (Wolf baseline replaced with Wolfer baseline)
  • Counts after 1947 are reduced 18% (count correction)
  • The old and new records match between 1890 and 1946 (Wolfer baseline)
  • Counts prior to 1890 increased (count correction, new data)
  • 405-year history has solar activity minimums every 100 years or so
  • 405-year history generally more homogenous

New group number sunspot record is more accurate. (Credit/Steve Davidson, WDC/SILSO data)

The newly rebuilt group number time series shows that solar activity is considerably more ‘even’ over its 405-year history than previously thought. Formerly, it looked as though sunspot activity in the past was much weaker than at present, especially prior to 1890. Counting inconsistencies artificially created that non-existent effect.

The rebuilt record contains four distinctive dips in solar activity that occur roughly every 100 years. It’s not a foregone conclusion that the “Eddy Minimum” (proposed name) will actually come to pass, it’s still too early to tell for sure, but virtually all major solar activity indicators suggest it will.

Climate Change Implications

For human-caused global warming skeptics the most disappointing outcome of the revision is that the so-called “Modern Maximum” peaking in the mid-1950s largely disappears. It had been credited with some of the late 20th century warming attributed entirely to CO2 emissions by human-caused global warming theorists.

Solar activity after 1975 declined while earth’s temperature rose sharply. Obviously, solar activity since 1975 does not correlate to earth’s late 20th century warming. Thus, it cannot be a primary driver of earth’s short term temperature rise.

However, that’s not the end of the story. The “unnamed minimum” in the late 1880s to 1915 matches earth’s temperature decline back then. After that, both solar activity and temperature increased together.

The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only documents direct global temperature measurements back to 1850. Both the Dalton and Maunder minimums, and an earlier one called the Spörer Minimum, occurred before 1850. Like happened from 1880 to 1915, anecdotal data suggests earth was colder during those minimums, which is now commonly referred to as “The Little Ice Age“.

Thus, periodic decades long solar activity changes probably do have climate change effects.

If the Eddy Minimum fully develops over the next couple decades, as many solar physicists believe, then decreasing solar activity will likely dampen or possibly reverse already stalled global warming before mid-century, despite increased human emissions of carbon dioxide.

Advertisements

About azleader

Learning to see life more clearly... one image at a time!

Posted on Jul 8, 2015, in astronomy, Climate, climate change, environment, Global Warming, news, Politics, science, solar cycle, solar physics, space, Sun, sunspot activity, sunspot report, sunspots. Bookmark the permalink. 9 Comments.

  1. I am personally skeptical of any and all attempts to modify historical solar records, because . . .

    I know from my own, and the research careers of others, that . . .

    Nations and national academies of science were united into a giant, worldwide Orwellian Ministry of Consensus Scientific (UN)Truths on 24 Oct 1945 to prohibit public knowledge of NEUTRON REPULSION . . .

    The source of energy in cores of the Sun, other ordinary stars, galaxies some planets and all atoms heavier than ~150 amu (atomic mass units), . . .

    including the atoms of Uranium and Plutonium that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki and crippled leaders of nations and national academies of science with fear-based INSANITY (loss of contact with reality).

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Introduction.pdf

    • Thank you for informing the public about changes in the sunspot record.

      It has long been known that Earth’s climate correlates with solar activity and with the number of sunspots,

      http://www.john-daly.com/solar/US-drought.htm

      and recent attempts to predict global climate change independent of solar activity have failed miserably

      http://www.springerlink.com/content/r2352635vv166363/
      http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/jfe-superfluidity.pdf

      That is why, I was deeply concerned that supporters of the seriously flawed standard solar model (SSM) revised the historical sunspot record.

    • Before passing judgement, I suggest you read the referenced paper in Space Science Review. It’s a very meticulous and exceptionally detailed study and review of the sunspot record before suggesting changes.

      Most of the presentations made in the “SSN Workshops” meetings can be seen at its web site too.

      The great strength of the recalibration is that it brings consistency to the sunspot record. It never had that before.

      • Thanks for bringing to public attention modifications to the historical sunspot record.

        I know Leif Svalgaard and some other participants personally. They advocate SSM (standard solar model) of a hydrogen-filled star and refuse to publicly address data that disprove the SSM.

        E.g., the Sun vibrates like a pulsar and other data cited in my first post above. Solar cycles and sunspots arise from the deep, dense interior of the Sun and are unexpected from the SSM (standard solar model) of a homogeneous ball of hydrogen.

        If allowed to do so, I will post below experimental data that I presented at the 2002 SOHO Helioseismology Workshop at Big Bear Observatory.

      • You are welcomed to share your data. I’m curious to see what was presented at Big. Bear and how it was received.

        Svalgaard may not think the way you do, but he does have the distinction of forecasting the amplitude of an exceptionally weak Cycle 24 within his margin of error way back in 2004, when the more prevailing view held by James Hansen and others predicted Cycle 24 would be a very strong one at 144 on the old scale (202 on the new scale).

  2. Nicely done.
    cbdakota

  3. This is a paper presented at the 2002 SOHO Workshop on Helioseismology:

    O.K. Manuel and Stig E. Friberg, “Composition of the solar interior: Information from isotope ratios”, Proceedings of SOHO 12/GONG Conference on Local and Global Helioseismology: The Present and the Future, 27 Oct-1 Nov 2002, Big Bear Lake, CA, U.S.A. (ESA SP-517, editor: Huguette Lacoste) pp. 345-348 (2003). http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0410717v1http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts/gong-2002.pdf

    This is one of the earliest papers showing the solar cycle is linked with solar motion:

    P.D. Jose, “Solar motion: Sunspots,” Astron J 70 (1965) 193-200: http://www.giurfa.com/jose.pdf

    Here are papers solar vibrations from the Sun’s dense (pulsar) core:

    1. Peter Toth, “Is the Sun a pulsar?” Nature 270 (1977) 159-160. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v270/n5633/abs/270159a0.html

    2. V.A. Kotov, “A pulsar inside the Sun?” RQE 39 (1996) 811-814: http://www.springerlink.com/content/j549440457107v36/

    3. Carl A. Rouse, “Evidence for a small, high-Z, iron-like solar core,” Solar Physics 110 (1987) 211-235: http://www.springerlink.com/content/k26825872rv64411/

  4. Here is the rest of the story recorded in information that was retained from 1945 by my mentor and others:

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/STALINS_SCIENCE.pdf

    I personally invite Leif Svalgaard and other solar and nuclear physicists to address false changesin these basic fields immediately after WWII.

Comments and questions are welcomed!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: