Layman's Sunspot Count

[walnut]

Didn't this guy Geoff Sharp used to post on here? I agree with him in principle, about the problem of inflation of sunspot count data over the years. Never have studied his site enough to form any opinion on the validity of his pixel counting methodology. Interesting stuff though.

[flearider]

he does it old school .. then you can see if there really is a difference .. it's a good site to look at ..

[acidohm]

Leif Svalgaard says the same thing

His site leif.org has a pdf file that explains in detail....there's also this. ..
cyclesresearchinstitute.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/sunspot-number-reconstruction-by-leif-svalgaard-and-proxy-cycles-of-104-and-208-years/

Dr Svalgaard has contact with the guy who possess the telescope used to 'count' the 1st sunspot records....handy if u want to make a comparison!

The last 5 or so cycles get reduced by something like 15%....which actually only makes this cycle (and perhaps the next) quieter still.

[walnut]

Dr Svalgaard was critical regarding Geoff's work in some way, I don't recall what it amounted to. Also some disagreement about what Livingston and Penn's thesis proved or meant.

[acidohm]

I think the l&p effect has reached its minimum therefore discounting the theory it may result in 0 sunspots???

[missouriboy]

Article on the revised sunspot counts.  Many issues remain unanswered however.

www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/sunspot-analysis-questions-solar-climate-link.html

[walnut]

There is absolutely something fishy about this. I guess all will be revealed someday. I just don't understand the motivations or agendas.

[graywolf]

I think it significant that we 'smooth out' past user errors from the record esp. if folk are so keen on linking climate impacts from solar cycles over Global changes in atmospheric chemistry playing a larger role?

[acidohm]

Can we smooth out the user error from the temp record too??

But seriously, i dont think ANYONE has a clue when it comes to the climate, also, the reduction in sunspot numbers only serves to make the current weak sun appear even weaker. If a sun/climate correlation appears, it will be all the stronger for the sunspot number change.....

i dont think c02 is wot is doing it.....but then i dont have a clue either



Anyhow, the above adjusted graph speak for itself, the last century shows predominantly strong sunspot numbers, we live on a planet mostly surfaced in water in some way or another....uv can be 10% difference from low to max activity....uv heats water.

Warmth increases bio activity....produces CO2 through respiration.

My theory anyway......

[nautonnier]

Of course all this would be very important were it not for the fact that "The Sun Does Not Warm The Earth" it only moderates its heat loss. Scary as that means Earth could be continually cooling and there was no 'weak sun paradox'.

[missouriboy]

Sept 7, 2015 18:33:08 GMT nautonnier said:

Of course all this would be very important were it not for the fact that "The Sun Does Not Warm The Earth" it only moderates its heat loss. Scary as that means Earth could be continually cooling and there was no 'weak sun paradox'.

I have wondered similar things in the past, but was always stymied by the fact (if it is one) that the oceans do not appear to
heat from the bottom up (could be wrong).  Are the warm phases of the AMO and PDO nothing more than 'warm burps' of
heat dispensed at regular intervals and transported by currents?  The lava lamp analogy ... where their origin is hidden from
our best equipment?  

A great cosmic joke on the warmists that claim that the heat is 'hiding in the oceans'?