http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=704&page=1 “Layman’s Sunspot Count” is one place. A search for “speck” will bring up others.

In addition to higher resolution observation picking up smaller spots, we are also artificially increasing the spot count through more thorough 24 hour per day observation.

In general though, the sunspot record is much longer and much cleaner than any temperature or precipitation records.

discussion on sunspots vs “specks” can be found over at solarcycle24.com.

Spaceweather.com is showing a SSN of 12 for the 12th June.
They did the same 3 days ago.
Checking the SOHO MDI images,
you can get them here http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/realtime-mdi_igr-1024-all.html

shows no sunspots since the 5th of June which means we have had 7 spotless days and 5 spot days this month. Their info doesn’t make sense (Spaceweather.com that is ).

So my question is, what are these people counting.

So, as sunspots get started again, and we start – however slowly or rapidly – moving back toward max, we’re going to recover that 0.1 – 0.15C. No? So, in 6-7 years, we’re going to see an increase in global surface temps of 0.1C – 0.15C, just as a result of sunspot activity?

No?

With these preconditions, SC 23 (if Oct 2008 would be the last month of the cycle) would be the third longest cycle since 1755.

Quite interesting, we actually disagree on the beginning of cycle 13 and probably agree on the ending time. I have Jan 1902 as the first month of cycle 14, much as you suggest, but December 1888 as the first month of cycle 13. That’s because the smoothed 13 month sunspot # got down to 5.41538 in December 1888, then as you say, it started upward then dipped again. It reached 5.43077 in December 1889. It then rose a bit and dipped a bit again, then finally rose starting in March 1890, as you point out.

So, if you look at the cycle beginning when the clear uptrend becomes monotonic, I would agree with you and this would make cycle 13 at least a year shorter. My rule was to just look for the minimum though, seemed the simplest.

Thanks for the thought provoking analysis and discussion,
Paul

“My spreadsheet indicates that cycle 23 was 147 months (12.25 years). This is calculated using the 13 month smoothed International Sunspot Number. Cycles 4, 6, 9 and 13 were longer.”

I made the same calculation on my spreadsheet. If we assume SC23 begins in May 1996 and ends in October 2008, the duration of the cycle was 150 months. (Of course, your calculation started with another month.)
Then, there are 2 cycles that are longer: cycle 4 (164 months) and cycle 6 (151 months: begin Oct 1810, end Apr 1823). Cycles 5 (begin May 1798, end Sep 1810) and 9 (begin Jul 1843, end Nov 1855) lasted 149 months.

I have a difference with your calculation for the solar cycle 13. I think you agree with the begining (Mar 1890) but for the end of the cycle, there are several months in the running. When I opt for Jan 1902, cycle 13 was 143 months long.

With these preconditions, SC 23 (if Oct 2008 would be the last month of the cycle) would be the third longest cycle since 1755.

Of course, as Leif says,
- solar cycles overlap by several years,
- “the [smoothed - itself a dubious thing] minimum around 1890 had multiple ‘minima’ ”
- “The next minimum did a similar thing (…) during 1901 May- Jun and 1901 Dec – 1902 Feb”

So, “the whole concept is too fuzzy and not very useful” (see post regarding Ken Tapping)
Nevertheless, it should be reassuring, if we should agree on some calculations.

Geeze Anthony, doncha know that we live and breathe by your written word being the sheeple that we are:P Hehehe. (mumbles Anthony!, Anthony!)

Flanagan, when Australia had fires, it was global warming. When CA had a hot spell and or fires, it was touted as a sure sign of the global warming to come in both the local and national news. There was a recent report on all the MSM stations about refugees of sea rises on islands where the ocean hasn’t risen yet, and lets see what else have I heard about lately, certainly not the cold!. Oh yes, tornados were more intense because of global warming, and our first cyclone of the season was a day early and that was also touted as a symptom of global warming. Nancy P. went to china to talk about human rights of global warming. Our legislature is about to vote on a bill based on .. you guessed it, the theory of Co2 caused by humans warming the earth. While its ok for warmers to use ‘weather’ as sure signs of warming.. turn about is considered cherry picking. Maybe if more balance was restored in our media we wouldnt need to be so defensive, perhaps we could even have a rational discussion… but alas the non existant consensus makes that impossible but no one forces you to come here and read… that tells me you have doubts as well.

We keep hearing one month does not a trend make, but here you are screaming about a warm month. Well all these years later most of us are wondering, does the current trend have to go longer then the “warming” trend at max solar activity and El Nino for the models to be proven wrong? Or do you buy the momentary pause in warming theory caused by those pesky negative feedbacks which AGW absolutely denies exist. I do notice we haven’t managed to expand beyond the one degree on the anomaly chart. Where o where is that massive heating? HMMMMMM?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif

Geoff Sharp (00:20:20) :
I seem to recall Leif saying not so long ago that Aug 2008 was going to be the minimum
never miss a chance of a cheap shot…

Geoff Sharp (00:20:20) :
So its official, SC23 minimum has gone way past Aug 2008?

Of course. It happened months ago, it follows from the way the smoothing works.

Thanks Carsten, the reason I mentioned it was I seem to recall Leif saying not so long ago that Aug 2008 was going to be the minimum…but my memory may not be correct?

Go back to the 1950′s or earlier; and would anyone have seen the current crop of cycle 24 sunspots ?

I believe they are very small; is their observation possible only because of better equipment ?

If so; if we used comparable technology – how many spotless days would we ‘really’ have had ?