What modulates our Sun? The majority of science work on the principle that the Sun is self modulating and each solar cycle is a product of a random number generator. There are others that suspect the Sun is modulated by the planets with a special emphasis on Uranus & Neptune. Thanks to Carl Smith who has recently left us we have new knowledge that significantly adds to Jose, Landscheidt & Charvàtovà's work.

Geoff Sharp

New Lockwood Papers Challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn and WUWT?

Three new papers in print from Mike Lockwood et al are about to throw a spanner in the works for some. For years the crew over at WUWT have been pushing the agenda that the Sun has no impact on climate, along with the PDO has no impact on climate and is an after effect of ENSO, AND that the Sun is powered by an internal dynamo that has NO influence from the solar system planets. Try to discuss these issues on WUWT and Anthony Watts will eventually ban you.

Leif Svalgaard who is backed up by Willis Eschenbach and a whole host of groupies have been telling us "its NOT the Sun Stupid" for many years. Anthony Watts who runs the most read climate skeptical blog on the planet appears to be in agreement by allowing and protecting his partners in crime by publishing and promoting Svalgaard and Eschenbach. 

Svalgaard the ultimate sophist, has a grab bag full of responses ready to outwit anyone who claims there is a Solar/Climate link and even publishes papers that support his claims. He is also attempting to change the Sunspot record to suit his claims by promoting a Sunspot Workshop, I suspect it will be harder now to promote his agenda. What we don't hear about on WUWT is the papers that are published that refute Svalgaards claims, (or any of the new papers published concerning solar planetary influence).

Some  of the agenda driven arguments put forward by Svalgaard include:

The Lean (2000) TSI reconstruction is no longer valid.

There has been no recent solar grand maximum.

Solar output is governed by a flat floor.

The Group Sunspot Record (GSN) is incorrect before 1848.

The Sunspot record is inflated after 1945 (correct)

The Livingston & Penn Effect is real and accurate.

Small Sunspots are not increasing in proportion to large Sunspots in SC24.

The Layman's Sunspot Count is uncalibrated junk.

The new papers just out from Mike Lockwood seem to refute everything Svalgaard has been promoting for years and now pose a serious question on the merits of WUWT. So what are Mike and his colleges telling us?

The opening Figure on this article shows a graph from Lockwood showing solar output over the last 400 years. The blue line is his new suggested solar output that takes into consideration the "Waldemeir Discontinuity" along with the "Wolfer Discontinuity" and the "Wolf Discontinuity", he also suggests the red line (based on the GSN) is just as likely to be correct. The Lean (2000) TSI reconstruction is very close to the Lockwood solar reconstruction (Rc) and the GSN record (Rg) which will have huge ramifications if correct, it will reveal that the Sun has had a bigger variance in TSI over the sunspot record that is far greater than the 0.1% that Svalgaard and the IPCC subscribe to.

Svalgaard has been saying for years that there is a base level of solar output that is reached every solar minimum that aligns with periods such as the Maunder Minimum. He has also suggested that SIDC Sunspot record (R) prior to 1945 needs to be raised so there is no solar grand maximum as suggested by Solanki, Lockwood and many others. He has falsely claimed that the GSN record is in error and refuses to challenge the SIDC record (R) before 1848 in his workshops, he also uses the "Waldemeir Discontinuity" in an incorrect attempt to raise the pre 1945 SIDC sunspot records even further to flatten out the record. Lockwood acknowledges the recent work by Leussu et al who have gone back over the recently digitized Schwabe pre 1848 sunspot drawings that verify the GSN as being correct and that the SIDC values need to be reduced by 20% before 1848. The pre 1848 Wolf numbers used by the SIDC (R) were reconstructed by Wolf using solar proxy records and are now shown to be incorrect (SC5& SC6 are roughly correct, see figure at end of article). I highlighted the Leussu et al paper some time ago in an article HERE and also challenged WUWT to run a post on the paper which was rejected. It seems Svalgaard should have taken my direct advice to seriously look at the SIDC record before 1848 instead of ignoring it and pushing on with his own agenda, rather than working in the pursuit of real knowledge.

Interestingly Lockwood agrees with the "Waldemeir Discontinuity" where the post 1945 sunspot record is skewed because of the different counting method employed, but does not quite agree with Svalgaards 20% over count value and suggests an adjustment of around 10% to be more correct. On this point I would have to agree with Svalgaard as it is very easy to look at the actual sunspot counts of Locarno and see the actual values recorded per spot, there is no question that the "Waldemeir Discontinuity" is greater than 10%.

But of further interest is the "Wolfer Discontinuity" highlighted by Lockwood showing that the conversion factor employed by Wolfer (0.6) is not correct and has been subject to change over multiple solar cycles because of the changing relationship of small spots to big spots. I have been highlighting this as a major part of the Layman's Sunspot Count and Lockwood uses the same data from Nagovitsyn, Pevtsov and Livingston that show the proportion of small spots are HIGHER in relation to big spots over SC24. Lockwood also notes that the Nagovitsyn, Pevtsov and Livingston data suggests there is no L&P Effect once the smaller spots are removed from the L&P data as I have been pointing out, but over at WUWT there is no challenge to the L&P Effect with Svalgaard getting onboard with Penn in continuing to promote this false science. The L&P forecast of 7 SSN for SC25 is based on incorrect science.

If we want to compare SC24 with SC5 we need to allow for the "Waldemeir Discontinuity" AND the "Wolfer Discontinuity" as the Layman's Sunspot Count does, and now move away from Svalgaards claim that SC24 is much higher than SC5. David Archibald also needs to take in these factors when presenting comparisons on WUWT.

The evidence is emerging that there is indeed a solar link to climate and that the GSN record is more likely to be correct in the overall output of the Sun. It is time for Anthony Watts to look at all of the science (including the new planetary science) instead of pushing his own narrow view on the topics involved. WUWT is now a long way away from being recognized as a science blog, its now a platform for those pushing their own agenda's.

The full Lockwood papers can be found HERE.

Note the solar proxy records now agreeing with the solar output reconstruction.


How anyone can claim the only

How anyone can claim the only source of energy within many light years of Earth has no effect on climate shows how stupid these egotistical FOOLS are.

They are simply clearly insane if they claim that changes in solar radiation have no effect on climate - simple as that.

This looks much different this time then in the past. It looks like the N and S are in the same zone. N has crossed the zero line again.


Geoff could you comment on the significance of this if any?

The solar pole strength graph

The solar pole strength graph might provide the next break through in our growing knowledge of solar grand minima. True grand minima cycles usually come in pairs, the first cycle experiences the AMP event where the disordered inner loop occurs but the next cycle does not and if anything experiences very favorable conditions for a very high cycle. I speculate in my paper that the first cycle because of the low activity does not enable a normal reversal of the poles which then leaves the next cycle with a broken Hale cycle, ie both the poles are of the same polarity or perhaps just being around neutral will severely hamper the next cycle.

This is the first time in history that we are able to measure the pole strength of grand minimum type  cycles, everyone is witnessing this phenoneon for the first time. Of interest is the failing strength of the north which might provide the pole with the greatest disruption, early in the cycle the south was looking like the pole most likely to fail.

Interestingly in 2012 Svalgaard offered me a bet of $500 that both poles would reverse polarity during SC24, I wonder if he is still of the same confidence today?

Thanks. As far  as Leif  he

Thanks. As far  as Leif  he is an agenda driven phony. I  have zero respect for anything that comes out of his mouth. Willis is just as bad, and Anthony is gulity of allowing these two fools to take over his web-site.


It is ridiculous.

There is a new model by David

There is a new model by David Evans that is in production that is trying to establish a Solar/Climate link. I have commented at Jo Nova's blog:


Thanks David & Jo for your interesting analysis on a possible Sun/Climate link.

Could I make some suggestions that may improve your model as well as some relabeling that may go a long way to more general acceptance.

1. Replace the TSI values with open Solar Flux (OSF)
2. Get a more reliable forecast for Solar Cycle 25.
3. Use the ocean oscillations (PDO) instead of nuclear testing.

New papers in print by Lockwood et al show a OSF reconstruction that very closely follows the Lean 2000 (and others) TSI reconstruction. The Lockwood plot also shows a large decline around 2003. TSI is almost useless as a measure for 2 reasons, firstly the term TSI is misunderstood and causes confusion when looking at reconstructions and direct measurements, the whole area is in dispute and perhaps best kept away from. The Group Sunspot Number is often used in the TSI reconstructions with the GSN accused by some as inaccurate, but there are others saying it is more likely to be correct if we look at the latest work done on the recently digitized Schwabe pre 1848 sunspot drawings. Secondly TSI should be about the total heat output of the Sun, which is not the only factor that should be included when looking at a Solar/Climate link, the OSF values would be a better representation of the total solar output.

The new Lockwood papers and my take on them can be found at

The Livingston & Penn data is now seen by many to be incorrect and not useful for making solar cycle predictions. Their mistake is to measure every single spot for magnetic strength, but this cycle has seen an increase in the smaller spots to larger spot ratio which has skewed their data. If we place a threshold on their data by eliminating the smaller spots it can be seen there is no linear drop off of sunspot magnetic strength as they suggest.

My predictions for SC24 and SC25 are for both cycles to be similar to SC5/6 of the Dalton Minimum which is around 50SSN using the old scale (the modern method is flawed). My predictions are based on a new scientific method that is now backed up by eminent scientists such as McCracken, Beer and Steinhilber.

My paper is published at the peer reviewed International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics (IJAA)

When considering climate we cannot solely look to solar as a driver. The ENSO effects must be considered which look to follow a 60 year cycle that is governed by the PDO. A cool 30 year PDO will temper El Nino and strengthen La Nina and vice versa, the PDO data will strengthen your model and explain the temperature shift at 1945 and now. Solar is perhaps a smaller factor than the PDO IMO. Some will say the PDO is inaccurate because it only looks at the spatial SST values of the northern pacific (along with sea level pressures) but this index does support influence over the Walker Circulation that drives ENSO.

I am based in Melbourne and would be happy to assist you with any queries associated with my post.

Geoff Sharp.

Hi Geoff, Salvatore and the

Hi Geoff, Salvatore and the others.

I'm fascinated with what has been happening with the solar radiations and have followed Geoff's LSC estimate for many months. I usually do an automated download of "node50" at least once a day.

I've noticed the existence of 2 peaks in this solar cycle (LSC estimate), one at the end of 2011 and another from October/2013 to basically "now" (it's not clear if the solar max has essentially ended or not). OTOH, what happened in the last ~ 10 days seems not only abnormal, but also meaningful.

The 1st peak of this cycle was "smoother" with not so strong oscillations of the daily ssn count as the recent 2nd peak

I believe the oscillations of the 2nd peak could be meaningful in the sense of indicating some kind of "disruption" of the normal process that produces the spots, while in the 1st peak this "disruption" was not present. The increasing relation of small to large spots during the evolution of the cycle could be an indication of this "disruption".

The possibility that Geoff pointed out that

" ... there is indeed a solar link to climate and that the GSN record is more likely to be correct in the overall output of the Sun."

would be revolutionary. The GSN actually makes more sense than the other estimates of SSN (except the LSC), having in sight the good similarity of the LSC for cycle C24 and the GSN for C5,

which looks even better than the SIDC estimate for SC5.

A final comment, the LSC presented in this site is the only count that I know that gives SSN for the present cycle as considerably smaller than C14 and therefore, the only one that agrees with the aa-index from the UK Solar System Data Centre since C11, in terms of relative "intensity" of the radiations of C24 and C14,

Here is my plot of the aa-index data,

Now, on the political side of the discussion, I think it's interesting that Leif's and WUWT positions of going against the Sun as the cause of the recent warming of the XX century- by denying the solar grand maximum- necessarily reinforces the AGW "theory", as there would be nothing left to explain the warming.

A final question Geoff, what

A final question Geoff, what do you think is the physical cause for the  increased ratio of small spots to large ones in the present cycle?

Is there a limit for this "increase"? For example, if it was 10 times greater than now what would be the consequences in terms of ssn count and solar radiations intensity?

Thanks! :-)

Hi Dmh, your graphs are

Hi Dmh, your graphs are interesting, especially the daily LSC which indeed does show much more volatility of the second peak. The northern hemisphere peak was more consistent than the south showing that the southern hemisphere is perhaps more disturbed than the north at their peaks and of importance is that only one hemisphere is generally firing at once.

The WUWT statement on no solar/climate link is I think now an irreversible position, that will probably be their undoing up the track...all I can say is they have made their beds.

The physical cause of the decline in bigger spots is unknown but most probably related to a changing dynamo caused by changes at the Tachocline, which I think are linked to the disordered orbit...but the actual mechanics are still unknown. If the smaller spot ratio increased, solar output would certainly decrease but the SIDC SSN values would be less affected, the point missed by many is that the Wolfer 0.6 conversion factor is not allowing for the changes to the small/big spot ratio and is another factor that needs to be considered when comparing the modern count with cycles like SC5/6.


A new paper by Usoskin et al

A new paper by Usoskin et al is providing further evidence for the recent solar "Grand Maximum", and of interest the paper supports the Group Sunspot Number (GSN) that has been verified by Leussu et al (Usoskin is a co author).

Also another paper (not yet peer reviewed?) headed by the SIDC's Clette with Svalgaard as second author attempts to discredit the GSN record but fails to challenge the findings of Leussu et al. Also the authors try to convince us SC24 is not a grand minimum cycle by comparing SC14 with SC24, but use the SIDC values for SC24. The paper is over 80 pages with much of the propaganda aimed squarely at the required adjustments to the SIDC and GSN counts, but then uses unadjusted data in their graphs?

What strikes me as important is there has been no rebuttal to the Leussu et al paper, the methodology or data is not questioned, but in its place Svalgaard comes up with his own method of quantifying the GSN. This is not good enough and if this paper passes peer review it will be a blight on the scientific community.

This is just one of the graphs with the unadjusted data for SC24. Surely they cant be serious?

Svalgaard back in 2004 predicted the current cycle would be the same as SC14, but at the time was not aware of the Waldmeier jump and how the modern record is now grossly over counting. Rather than admit SC24 is like SC5 which is the lowest cycle in 200 years, Svalgaard uses the wrong data set to save face...


The Hockey Schtick

The Hockey Schtick site,

is showing a new estimate of Leif's reconstruction of sunspot observations, which now give a local minimum for the "time integral" of the ssn during the Maunder period.

Therefore, at least indirectly, his own data is showing the solar-climate connection, although your comment above about his recent co-authored paper seems to indicate that he has not changed his mind.

As I said in my previous post, your LSC estimate of ssn is the only one (that I know) that gives good correlation with the present low aa-index, and the present trend of cooling climate is obviously confirming the low intensity.

Keep up your good work here Geoff, they can push their academic bias for some time (their paradigm- the solar dynamo pumped by nuclear fusion- will probably not last for another solar cycle), but in the end the facts will prevail, and the LSC will receive the attention it deserves.

Many thanks go to Carl's brother Dave for providing the Domain, Server and Software.