Solar — Hide The Decline

Couple of days ago oldbrew posted an article highlighting an article at phys.org, 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.

http://www.sidc.be/silso/archivemonthlyssnplot

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.
— http://phys.org/news/2015-08-sunspot-history-climate-due-natural.html

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.

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

http://phys.org/news/2015-08-sunspot-history-climate-due-natural.html

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). http://isgi.unistra.fr/data_download.php

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

Post by Tim