Update on solar cycle 24

Space Weather Prediction Center

Image via Wikipedia

NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center posted an update to their graphs today.

They show the largest gains in solar cycle 24 tracking metrics I’ve seen yet.

See graphs below:

 

 

About these ads
This entry was posted in Science, Solar and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

136 Responses to Update on solar cycle 24

  1. JKrob says:

    Well…as they say, one jump does not a trend make ;-) Time will tell.

    Chears!
    Jeff

  2. Paul Westhaver says:

    Anthony et al,

    Have any of you constructed an animation of the sunspot predictions.
    Would you please link to the various images that NOAA has produced? I will download and make a gif of the variations in sunspot number predictions in time. I think it will be amusing and informative.

  3. Green Sand says:

    Watt goes up?

  4. jmrSudbury says:

    Ya. I saw those graphs already on the solar page of a website called WattsUpWithThat — John M Reynolds

  5. Tom Rowan says:

    Today’s sun at Spaceweather.com shows a precipitous decline of sunspot activity.

    And March was one of the coldest Marches in several years?

    And if our only hope to avert a catastrophic mini ice age depended on burning coal, oil, and forests, we would be all be doomed. We could not warm the planet if our lives depended on it.

    Soon enough, enough snow will melt in California so that they can reopen their ski resorts.

    And the government will shut down if the the ruling regime is not able to fund the EPA and tax the air we breath.

    I thought the 21st Century was gonna be a cool century to live in. I thought we would have flying cars and Hilton hotels on the moon and Mars by now.

    What a disappointment. Science used to by mankind’s best friend. Now “science” is used as a club to beat hot air taxes from burned out taxpayers.

    Is anybody as pissed of as I am?

  6. Ray says:

    How much are those people paid again?

  7. Marian says:

    At least since March and so far for the beginning of April. Upper HF conditions have started to improve. US stateside 10M FM repeaters are starting to come through nearly daily. Along with 10M SSB amateur radio comms into NZ.

    Longpath reception on 10M to Southern Europe is also coming through some mornings aswell. So there’s been some improvement with the recent increase of solar activity.

  8. Paul Pierett says:

    Presently, per Joseph D’Aleo’s research, this cycle will peak around the winter of 2013/2014 give or take a year for a total of 220 total average mean for the cycle in 2019. This will be one third the strength of the last 7 cycles.

    Sincerely,

    Paul Pierett

    PS. “Grab your coat and Grab your hat!”

  9. DaveR says:

    Reply to Tom Rowan:

    Yes I’m mad too. Where the heck is my jetpack?

  10. G. E. Pease says:

    Here’s the April NASA Marshal Space Flight prediction. It is much more reasonable looking than the ridiculous NOAA prediction:
    http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

  11. DocattheAutopsy says:

    Compare this with April 05-07 in 2008, 2004, and 2001 with the one in 2011. It may be an uptick, but we’re still worlds away from the activity of those three previous samples.

    http://sohodata.nascom.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/soho_movie_theater

    (Note: If you’re looking for the HMI Magnetogram before 2010, you’ll not find it. Use the MDI magnetogram.)

  12. Ian Cooper says:

    Looks like the start of a mimic of Cycle 14 as surmised by Leif!?

  13. rbateman says:

    Umral area of the sunspots in SC24 has not kept pace with the 10.7cm flux:
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/uSC24vs13_14.GIF
    despite the spike of activity in March. There will be more spikes to come, but no reason to start exptrapolating stairways to heaven.

  14. rbateman says:

    Tom Rowan says:
    April 7, 2011 at 3:39 pm

    I thought the 21st Century was gonna be a cool century to live in. I thought we would have flying cars and Hilton hotels on the moon and Mars by now.

    It could have been, and we should have at least been to Mars, but political killjoys and partypoopers have managed to suck the air out of the Century.

  15. u.k.(us) says:

    Tom Rowan says:
    April 7, 2011 at 3:39 pm

    I’ll vote for “incredulous”

  16. Josh Grella says:

    Tom Rowan says:
    April 7, 2011 at 3:39 pm

    I’m right there with you, brother. I’m plenty mad. I was angry with the way most of the government treated anything scientific for the last 20 years. I didn’t think it could get worse. But then I cringed when Obummer Obama said during his inaugural address that he was going to “restore science to its rightful place.” I knew exactly what that meant and how he was going to try to make that happen. Joy :-(

  17. wayne says:

    Tom Rowan: absolutely. More than that. Absolutely !!

  18. Ian Cooper says:
    April 7, 2011 at 4:56 pm
    Looks like the start of a mimic of Cycle 14 as surmised by Leif!?
    The Sun is a messy place. Expect those wild swings for low cycles. On the other hand, it does not look like a Grand Minimum as some will have it.

  19. aaron says:

    One jump doesn’t make a trend, but I wonder if it makes an earthquake or volcanic eruption.

  20. It’s easy to catch up the sunspot numbers. That’s why when we can barely see three specs on the Sun’s disc, the sunspot count is 64. Go back and compare a sunspot count of 64 in the past solar cycle to a count of 64 today and see what I mean.

  21. David Thomson says:
    April 7, 2011 at 6:35 pm
    Go back and compare a sunspot count of 64 in the past solar cycle to a count of 64 today and see what I mean.
    Is this what you mean:
    http://www.specola.ch/drawings/1998/loc-d19980124.JPG where SSN = 66
    http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2011/loc-d20110331.JPG where SSN = 66

  22. mike sphar says:

    Hathaway finally nails it!!!

  23. Norman Page says:

    Perhaps the best indicator of a sharp change in solar activity as it affects climate is the Oulu cosmic Ray count. http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/#database
    There was a sudden drop of about 3% between Mar 29th and 30th and a complete change in the rate of decline since that date. This indicates a very sudden increase in solar activity with a resulting rapidly declining cosmic ray count. This may lead to a fairly rapid decrease in cloud cover – ocean warming and the demise of the current El Nina within the next several months. Anyone got any ideas of what solar (or cosmic? )event caused this sudden change? ( Wild speculation check out GRB 110328A)

  24. rbateman says:

    Ok, let’s compare SC23 and SC24 from thier start dates:
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/SC24/SC24_24progress.PNG
    and see how things stack up.
    My, what a difference in slopes.

  25. genomega1 says:

    Pete Tillman stated that “All you need to do is look at glaciers melting, crops ripening earlier, tender plants surviving further north than before, etc. etc.”

    Then perhaps you can explain why in Florida the frost belt has moved 100 miles south.
    Hundreds of orange groves no longer exist in northern Florida because the freezing temps destroyed them.

    Go ahead give it your best shot.

  26. Norman Page says:
    April 7, 2011 at 8:31 pm
    This indicates a very sudden increase in solar activity with a resulting rapidly declining cosmic ray count.
    You point out yourself that the drop is only a few percent. That can hardly have any dramatic effect.

    Anyone got any ideas of what solar (or cosmic? )event caused this sudden change?
    simply a sector boundary and its associated high-speed solar wind stream.

  27. rbateman says:
    April 7, 2011 at 8:58 pm
    Ok, let’s compare SC23 and SC24 from their start dates
    note the sharp increase in SSN near the end of 1997, similar to the recent jump.

  28. rbateman says:

    genomega1 says:
    April 7, 2011 at 10:06 pm

    When Global Warming ended, Global Cooling started in, shoving frost lines equatorward. Kind of like tides sloshing back & forth over multi-decadal timeframes of unknown length.
    It just took it a decade to apply the brakes before clutching into reverse.
    Watch out, though, unlike a standard transmission with multiple forward gears and one reverse, this thing sports multiple reverse gears.

  29. dp says:

    Looks like some Fukushima radioactive pollution found its way into the instruments or somebody is counting every freckle.

  30. izen says:

    @- genomega1 says:
    April 7, 2011 at 10:06 pm
    “…Then perhaps you can explain why in Florida the frost belt has moved 100 miles south.
    Hundreds of orange groves no longer exist in northern Florida because the freezing temps destroyed them.”

    Is this based only on the last bad winter ?
    I can find no historical data that indicates a yearly or decadel trend in colder, frostier days in Florida. Only a record of some exceptional winters (often during a La Nina period) affecting the subsequent orange growing season at least in part due to the effect on the pollinating bee populations.

    Due you have any evidence that the climate locally in N Florida is trending in the opposite direction from the global climate rather than just occasional fluctuations ?

  31. Tenuc says:

    Welcome to solar max…
    http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png

    Solar polar magnetic reversal well on the way…
    http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png

    Perhaps SC24 will be on the decline before the end of this year???

  32. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 7, 2011 at 5:47 pm
    Ian Cooper says:
    April 7, 2011 at 4:56 pm
    Looks like the start of a mimic of Cycle 14 as surmised by Leif!?
    The Sun is a messy place. Expect those wild swings for low cycles. On the other hand, it does not look like a Grand Minimum as some will have it.

    SC24 currently looks more like SC4 (Dalton Minimum) than SC14. IMO it’s a bit early (about 13 years) to be saying whether or not we have a grand minimum coming into play. Leif thinks SC25 will be bigger than SC24, and this is entirely possible. It’s also possible it may be about the same. Or smaller.

    Time will tell.

  33. Alan the Brit says:

    Q to Lief,

    If the big shiney thing in the sky, which contains 99.9% of the mass in the solar system, varies in TSI by one thenth of one percent over a solar cycle, how can anyone be certain that such a variation cannot affect the atmosphere of a planetary body containing much less than 1/10th of 1 % mass of the solar system. Genuine question! AtB:-)

  34. Geoff Sharp says:

    David Thomson says:
    April 7, 2011 at 6:35 pm

    It’s easy to catch up the sunspot numbers. That’s why when we can barely see three specs on the Sun’s disc, the sunspot count is 64. Go back and compare a sunspot count of 64 in the past solar cycle to a count of 64 today and see what I mean.

    The SIDC did look to over count March with many specks counted along with outlier specks in a group being split out as separate groups. Since Jan 2010 the SIDC result has been generally above the NOAA count. Both of these counts are of course higher than Wolf’s original method.

    SIDC/NOAA comparison graph here:

    http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sidc_noaa1.png

  35. E.M.Smith says:

    genomega1 says: Then perhaps you can explain why in Florida the frost belt has moved 100 miles south. Hundreds of orange groves no longer exist in northern Florida because the freezing temps destroyed them.

    Go ahead give it your best shot.

    Yeah, I’ve watched it over the last few decades as the orange groves slowly marched down past Orlando…

    Then again, it could be worse… It could have been like that winter a while ago when it was so cold it was “raining iguanas”:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/06/cold-killing-iguanas/

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/frozen-florida-citrus/

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,319971,00.html

    It’s raining iguanas in South Florida.

    A remarkable cold snap that brought temperatures in the mid-30s to the Miami area Thursday morning also brought lizards falling out of trees at Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park on Key Biscayne, the Miami Herald reported.

    Note: That says SOUTH Florida…

  36. cedarhill says:

    Yes, but the 10.7 flux seems to drift down toward 110 even with all the spots. Cycle 24 is like a very, very slow race at Talladega. We’re only at about lap 34 and maybe getting ready for the first pit stops. Oh, and the Big One is usually somewhere around lap 130+/-.

  37. kim says:

    Neither of us want a Grand Minimum, Leif, but these ‘wild swings’ in a ‘messy place’ shouldn’t quell our fears of one.
    ==============

  38. Sometimes the sun burps for a while. The sun is still on track for a repeat of the Dalton Minimum.

  39. Dave Springer says:

    DaveR says:
    April 7, 2011 at 4:22 pm

    Reply to Tom Rowan:

    Yes I’m mad too. Where the heck is my jetpack?

    My hearing isn’t as good as used to be but I’m pretty sure it isn’t “heck” in the lyrics. ;-)

  40. Crito says:

    The vegetation on Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park at the end of Key Biscayne was wiped out in Hurricaine Andrew in 1992. Soaring Autralian pines snapped like twigs. It was global warming, but who new then.

  41. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 8, 2011 at 2:21 am
    The SIDC did look to over count March with many specks counted along with outlier specks in a group being split out as separate groups. Since Jan 2010 the SIDC result has been generally above the NOAA count. Both of these counts are of course higher than Wolf’s original method.

    No, the NOAA/SIDC ratio for March was 0.63. The long-term average ratio is 0.64. Wolf’s original method is not used since 1893 [and shouldn't be used as it is not reproducible - this has been recognized by all serious observers since the 1890s]. The data since then has been scaled down by a factor of 0.6 to put the modern count on the same scale as Wolf’s. The modern count since 1945 has been 20% higher than it should be compared with 1893-1944. This has nothing to do with Wolf’s original method, but is due to weighting by size of the spots where large spots can count up to five times a small spot. Only the Locarno station still does such weighting, but since Locarno is used as reference station by SIDC, the weighting carries over into all other counts.

    tallbloke says:
    April 8, 2011 at 12:19 am
    SC24 currently looks more like SC4 (Dalton Minimum) than SC14.
    The SSN for SC5 [you don't mean SC4] is so uncertain that no meaningful comparison can be made. Wolf initially himself thought SC5 was a rather large cycle [based on the very meager solar observations at the time], but when he got a compilation of aurorae from Sweden published around 1880, he decided since there were rather few aurorae around and just after 1800 that he better reduce his sunspot number for SC5 and 6 [he almost cut them almost in half hence creating the Dalton Minimum].

  42. Norman Page says:

    Leif – your sector boundary explanation sounds plausible – but do you have any data to support it? Solar wind velocity change at the appropriate time for example.
    The 3% was just the initial drop – total was 5% + in a week or so – would be very significant if it continues.

  43. Pamela Gray says:

    Let us hope that no one here is foolish enough to think that SSN is the proper metric when measuring all the stuff spewing from our sun collectively referred to as solar output. And let us hope that no one here is foolish enough to think planet Earth, cloaked in her thick atmospheric soup, is a sensitive female prone to faints and illness at the slightest mood change in her big celestial lover.

    It is Earth herself, who faints and swoons to her own inner storms, and leaves her inhabitants to fend for themselves. If she pauses to consider her man at all, it is only when her winds are quiet enough to warm up her backside for a while. Typical of a female to press her chilly cheeks against a warm lover.

  44. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 8, 2011 at 2:21 am
    Since Jan 2010 the SIDC result has been generally above the NOAA count.
    The ratio SIDC/NOAA since Jan 2010 has been 0.64, not different from the long-term average. As I said Locarno is currently the World reference point. The main observer at Locarno, Sergio Cortesi, has been observing since 1957. Here http://www.leif.org/research/Sergio-and-Me-jpg is a photo of Sergio and me discussing his count at the telescope [using the same aperture as Wolf's original telescope here http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-80mm.png ]. Incidentally since about 1860 all wolf’s observations were made with this much smaller telescope http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-37mm.png . Wolf multiplied his counts made with this telescope by 1.5 to bring them onto his 80mm scale. As you can see, both telescopes still exist and are, in fact, still used every clear day to carry the Zurich sunspot series on.
    Since Wolf’s method is not reproducible [by any observer or sunspot-revisionist] the only way to ensure [or check] the calibration is by comparison with either another observer [using a reproducible method]. Wolfer did that for the last 16 years of Wolf’s observations [made exclusively with the small 37mm telescope] and found the [in]famous ratio 0.6 [after having first multiplied Wolf's count by 1.5]. Luckily, Wolf himself discovered [and used] a completely objective way of checking the calibration, namely by comparison with the daily variation of the magnetic needle [compass], see: http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf so it has been possible to obtain this objective calibration back to at least 1781, and sporadic back to 1722. Before that we don’t know what the calibration is, but simply assume that we can compare the various solar observers and make an educated guess.

  45. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 8, 2011 at 6:52 am

    Geoff Sharp says:
    April 8, 2011 at 2:21 am
    The SIDC did look to over count March with many specks counted along with outlier specks in a group being split out as separate groups. Since Jan 2010 the SIDC result has been generally above the NOAA count. Both of these counts are of course higher than Wolf’s original method.
    ——————————————————
    No, the NOAA/SIDC ratio for March was 0.63. The long-term average ratio is 0.64. Wolf’s original method is not used since 1893 [and shouldn't be used as it is not reproducible - this has been recognized by all serious observers since the 1890s]. The data since then has been scaled down by a factor of 0.6 to put the modern count on the same scale as Wolf’s. The modern count since 1945 has been 20% higher than it should be compared with 1893-1944. This has nothing to do with Wolf’s original method, but is due to weighting by size of the spots where large spots can count up to five times a small spot. Only the Locarno station still does such weighting, but since Locarno is used as reference station by SIDC, the weighting carries over into all other counts.

    No, NOAA and I both get 0.69. No point arguing, the graph shows it all.

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/RecentIndices.txt

    The rest of your response basically supports my argument, the Waldmeier factor making up the major component. It is time you accepted this publicly (your paper already says this)

    tallbloke says:
    April 8, 2011 at 12:19 am
    SC24 currently looks more like SC4 (Dalton Minimum) than SC14.
    The SSN for SC5 [you don't mean SC4] is so uncertain that no meaningful comparison can be made. Wolf initially himself thought SC5 was a rather large cycle [based on the very meager solar observations at the time], but when he got a compilation of aurorae from Sweden published around 1880, he decided since there were rather few aurorae around and just after 1800 that he better reduce his sunspot number for SC5 and 6 [he almost cut them almost in half hence creating the Dalton Minimum].

    There is no doubt SC5 was a low cycle. Who do you think has the best account? Wolf or Hoyt and Schatten? http://www.landscheidt.info/images/gsn_sval.png

  46. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 8, 2011 at 7:38 am

    Yep, heard it all before. It adds nothing to your argument.

  47. Norman Page says:
    April 8, 2011 at 7:28 am
    Leif – your sector boundary explanation sounds plausible – but do you have any data to support it? Solar wind velocity change at the appropriate time for example.
    Of course, I never say anything without data to support it. E.g. here: http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3

    Geoff Sharp says:
    April 8, 2011 at 7:49 am
    Yep, heard it all before.
    And still you haven’t learned anything

    It adds nothing to your argument.
    But it subtracts everything from yours, leaving nothing left.
    It would be nice if you would stick to what is historically correct, and to what is factually correct for recent data.

  48. Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 8, 2011 at 7:38 am
    telescope here http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-80mm.png ]. Incidentally since about 1860 all wolf’s observations were made with this much smaller telescope http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-37mm.png .
    Should have been:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-80mm.jpg
    http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-37mm.jpg

  49. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 8, 2011 at 7:46 am
    No, NOAA and I both get 0.69. No point arguing, the graph shows it all.
    My bad. I had averaged the ratios rather than ratioed the averages. Apparently makes a small difference.

    The rest of your response basically supports my argument, the Waldmeier factor making up the major component. It is time you accepted this publicly (your paper already says this)
    No, the Waldmeier factor means that all old values must be increased by 20% before being compared to modern data. ‘Accepted’ ? Who discovered the Waldmeier factor and been telling everybody and his brother about is for several years now?

    There is no doubt SC5 was a low cycle. Who do you think has the best account? Wolf or Hoyt and Schatten?
    Of course SC5 was low. The point is that the values are still so uncertain that direct numerical comparison does not make much sense. To wit the difference between Wolf and H&S. We can’t really tell from today which is better. Even if I could, people would still cherry pick what they like, supporting whatever agenda they have.

  50. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 8, 2011 at 8:05 am

    But it subtracts everything from yours, leaving nothing left.
    It would be nice if you would stick to what is historically correct, and to what is factually correct for recent data.

    Historically you well know that Wolf did not adopt the Waldmeier method of counting that introduces a very large step in the historical record. Before Waldmeier, Wolfer made his correction factor to align with Wolf without knowing that the Waldmeier method would be introduced or that the speck ratio would increase as you have stated thru L&P (whatever L&P is). Your insistence to bluff and blunder while I use your own research against you doesn’t look good.

  51. Norman Page says:

    Leif – Thanks for great link – everything conveniently presented all in one place.

  52. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 8, 2011 at 8:46 am
    Historically you well know that Wolf did not adopt the Waldmeier method of counting that introduces a very large step in the historical record.
    What nonsense, Wolf couldn’t adopt what he didn’t know about.
    The step is easily corrected for by increasing all the old values by some 20%. I’ve suggested that to SIDC [as well as getting rid of the silly 0.6]. We’ll see how that pans out. FYI, we are having a workshop in September at Sunspot, NM [there is such a place] with all the relevant participants [SIDC, NOAA, etc] to figure out what to do about the mess.

    Your insistence to bluff and blunder
    I just tell you the facts. Accept them or not. Your loss if you don’t.

  53. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 8, 2011 at 8:35 am

    Even if I could, people would still cherry pick what they like, supporting whatever agenda they have.

    There is not much to cherry pick, they both show a low cycle. But interestingly the H&S method using 117 extra observers not available to Wolf that shows a slow start followed by a sudden ram up which then failed and shrank to nothing….

    No, the Waldmeier factor means that all old values must be increased by 20% before being compared to modern data. ‘Accepted’

    Who cares where the adjustment happens, but glad to see you admit the adjustment needs to happen. The current counting method differs by a large margin compared to how Wolf counted and reconstructed.

  54. Tom Rowan says:

    @E.M.Smith

    I live in SW Florida, (Naples, Florida 1/2 mile from Vanderbilt Beach on the Gulf of Mexico.)

    I like to feed the birds & wildlife and have a 4 inch deep bird bath in my back yard.

    In the winter of 2006, my bird bath had a skim of ice on it each morning for a solid week. Our front yard had frost on it for at least 2 weeks straight.

    In the winter of 2007, my yard was covered in frost many days only 1/2 miles inland, and my bird bath had the same skim of ice on it each morning. Plastic cups of water left on my driveway froze solid.

    In the winter of 2008, my 4 inch deep bird bath froze over solidly about an inch deep.
    It was too cold to walk the dog in bare feet. Other nights the bird bath would skim over with ice as it did the previous 2 winters.

    In the winter of 2009, it snowed in Marco Island, (trace,) and it snowed in southern Naples, (trace.) My 4 inch deep bird bath froze solid each for 4 straight nights.
    When it “warmed” up a bit, my bird bath slowly melted. It had solid ice in it for a total of 8 days.

    In the winter of 2010, all of the SW Florida tomato crop was hit with hard freezes just to the East of I-75. Most of our winter tomato crop was wiped out. Local Burger King’s and McDonald’s posted “We apologize for the inconvenience, but – Yes, we have No Tomatoes,” signs in their drive thru lanes.

    This winter, I took steps to protect the birds visiting my back yard.

    After careful analysis of Anthony Watts’ site location maps for Official Temperature Recording sites, I moved my bird bath onto a black top asphalt slab into direct sunlight. Since my air conditioning is turned off in winter months, I placed my bird bath is next to our outdoor fire pit which we have been burning almost every night over the last several winters. So, thankfully, my birds can take advantage of artificial and man made heat sources just like NOAA does at their thermometer sites. Of course, putting a landing strip in my back yard is out of the question, (the EPA has determined I am not allowed to disturb the fragile and delicate Eco-system that is my back yard. I hope the EPA isn’t watching when I take a pee back there….)

    My birds are doing fine and very thankful for man made warming in my back yard.
    So thank you Anthony, you are saving endangered wildlife threatened by extreme cold in SW Florida.

  55. Malaga View says:

    Tom Rowan says:
    What a disappointment. Science used to by mankind’s best friend. Now “science” is used as a club to beat hot air taxes from burned out taxpayers.

    Its more like waking up from a cosy dream… so much was an illusion… some still believe in to infinity and beyond… while others are falling back down to earth… re-entry is bumpy… crash landing is a nightmare… there are only two certainties: death and taxes :-(

  56. TonyG says:

    Tom Rowan says:
    I thought the 21st Century was gonna be a cool century to live in.

    Perhaps a different kind of cool than you expected?

  57. Tom Rowan says:

    I used to be one of this site’s worst critics of Dr Svalgaard. Only God and the Mods know how many of my vitriolic jabs @ Dr Svalgaard hit the memory hole.

    After several years of following Lief’s postings on sunspots and cycles, I have come to appreciate his presentations. His posts are always entertaining, grounded in science, and cause many tongues to wag here at WUWT. Dr Svalgaard’s posts generate more visits and traffic to this website than most of the blowhards visiting this site in their underwear. Of the millions of hits on this fine website, Dr Svalgaard’s contribution to these ongoing “hits” cannot be discounted.

    Anthony personally scolded me once on these fine pages when I posted some rabid comments about Dr Svalgaard. I can’t remember what Anthony said exactly….(cause I rarely listen to anybody,) But Anthony’s rebuke began something like this:

    “Dr Svalgaard is a well respected solar scientist with decades of research into solar cycles and solar research….. ”

    And so he is.

  58. vukcevic says:

    SIDC’s non-smoothed number for March is 56.3. Since I plot non-smoothed numbers, with a bit of luck by time of the SC24 max, SSN may hit 80, as the formula extrapolated this value as far back as 2003 (published Jan 2004), see red curve in:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
    It may be right, it may be wrong, no wobble or change here, that privilege belongs to the solar scientists Dr.s Hathaway, Dikati and rest of the expert opinion.

  59. mkelly says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    April 8, 2011 at 7:29 am

    Your writing style puts a grin on my face. Thanks.

  60. Sun Spot says:

    These are sun specs not spots

  61. Tom Rowan says:

    “Let us hope that no one here is foolish enough to think that SSN is the proper metric when measuring all the stuff spewing from our sun collectively referred to as solar output. And let us hope that no one here is foolish enough to think planet Earth, cloaked in her thick atmospheric soup, is a sensitive female prone to faints and illness at the slightest mood change in her big celestial lover.

    It is Earth herself, who faints and swoons to her own inner storms, and leaves her inhabitants to fend for themselves. If she pauses to consider her man at all, it is only when her winds are quiet enough to warm up her backside for a while. Typical of a female to press her chilly cheeks against a warm love lover” ~ Pamela Gray

    This is why Pam is one of our favs…(okay, I’ll come clean, I really think Pam writes like a princess poet. I have the restraining orders to prove it! ;-)

  62. Bruckner8 says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 8, 2011 at 8:58 am

    FYI, we are having a workshop in September at Sunspot, NM [there is such a place] with all the relevant participants [SIDC, NOAA, etc] to figure out what to do about the mess.

    Are mere mortals allowed to be there? What about scientists from other disciplines? I’d love to be there, using nothing but my BS Detector as claim after claim went flying around the room. (not necessarily to validate a claim, per se, but to judge whether it’s valid scientific methodology…I don’t need a degree in solar physics to ferret that out.)

    There needs to be a session where a moderator starts with writing one thing on the board, that we KNOW everyone will agree on, even if it’s as simple as 1 + 0 = 1. From there, another “fact” is written on the board, (“This dataset is complete”,”This dataset is incomplete, but we can apply this accepted methodology to it” etc), building up, until we get disagreement. Then move that to the side, forcing everyone to focus more on the agreements. Once we’re bored with that, it *should* be possible for everyone to agree that the DISagreement issues are purely differences in “hunches,” no matter how much science is behind them.

    But if people still disagree on the SCIENCE, we’re in trouble, and that will be forced to the forefront as well….WIN-WIN, baby!

  63. Max says:

    I merely wish to say, “Thank you Leif”, so I will…

    Thank you Leif.

  64. Bruckner8 says:
    April 8, 2011 at 1:26 pm
    Are mere mortals allowed to be there?
    The attendence is limited to 15 people [by the logistics of the place], so, sorry, no space.

    to judge whether it’s valid scientific methodology
    I think we are perfectly capable of that ourselves, oterwise yours trule will see to it.

    But if people still disagree on the SCIENCE, we’re in trouble
    This is more about the methodology, leaving the application of it [the science] aside.

  65. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 8, 2011 at 9:03 am
    they both show a low cycle.
    They show that we don’t know SC5 very well.

    but glad to see you admit the adjustment needs to happen. The current counting method differs by a large margin compared to how Wolf counted and reconstructed.
    Admit? I’m the one pushing this for years. Wolf’s method is inferior to the Wolfer count and irrelevant for any data before 1849 [when Wolf started]. When Wolfs [all pre-Waldmeier] [and H&S] are corrected [adjusted upwards] we have a consistent sunspot number series. In addition SIDC should correct their data 2001-2010 upwards by the 12.5% they have been undercounting. It may be that [because of my needling them] that their undercounting is coming to an end. We shall see. In any event, a return to Wolf’s method would be a huge step backwards, and would have no meaning for any data that Wolf did not observe himself, e.g. before 1849.. We have [eh, most of us, at least] learned a bit about how to count in a meaningful way since then.

  66. rbateman says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 7, 2011 at 10:39 pm
    rbateman says:
    April 7, 2011 at 8:58 pm
    Ok, let’s compare SC23 and SC24 from their start dates
    note the sharp increase in SSN near the end of 1997, similar to the recent jump.

    I’m going to wager that the SC24 SSN slope is 2/5th of the SC23 SSN slope… for now.

  67. rbateman says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 8, 2011 at 8:14 am

    Did you have a chance to note the apparent Field of View of these scopes?
    How about chromatic aberrations? You would have needed to point them terrestrially and observe things such as leaves on a tree.

  68. rbateman says:
    April 8, 2011 at 4:51 pm
    Did you have a chance to note the apparent Field of View of these scopes?
    The field of view is less than the Sun’s disk, so one has to scan the disk for spots.
    How about chromatic aberrations? You would have needed to point them terrestrially and observe things such as leaves on a tree.
    The optics is superb [come from Fraunhofer's factory]. No aberrations. Did look at things on the ground. Perfectly sharp.

  69. rbateman says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 8, 2011 at 5:03 pm

    Scopes like that give the first impression of being razor sharp, but you have to put them through the paces. The edges of green leaves and the moon, bright stars are what makes the chromatics stand out. And as we get older, it gets harder to see the chromatics.
    Did you try them out projecting spots?

  70. Ed Mertin says:

    I don’t see any fast reductions in cloud production happening for several years. Especially with Kamchatka and the ring of fire volcanoes belching plumes like they are/were.

  71. rbateman says:
    April 8, 2011 at 8:11 pm
    Scopes like that give the first impression of being razor sharp, but you have to put them through the paces.
    A dozen observers have put them through the paces over the past 150+ years.

    The edges of green leaves and the moon, bright stars are what makes the chromatics stand out. And as we get older, it gets harder to see the chromatics.
    The optics is among the finest possible. Fraunhofer made the finest achromatic optics. http://www.u.arizona.edu/~kennelly/finaldraft.htm
    “Within ten years he was producing the world’s finest achromatic lenses and prisms”
    from http://www.nextag.com/Spectrum-of-Belief-Joseph-1228969908/specs-html

    Did you try them out projecting spots?
    No, as the projection method was never used for counting spots, only direct visual observation. The handheld small telescope does not lend itself to projection [it not on a mounting].

  72. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 8, 2011 at 11:35 pm

    I see you mention the handheld is now 37mm aperture instead of 40mm. This cuts down the resolving power even further towards a min sunspot width of about 2500 km’s.

    Did you find out if Locarno measures the magnification at the viewing lens or at the projected drawing?

  73. kim says:

    I keep this particular irony in my museum’s Hall of Mirrors. Fraunhofer’s own work could not be reproduced, and was looked down upon by the scientific establishment as artisanal. Yet the images….
    ==============

  74. Geoff Sharp said
    April 9, 2011 at 1:01 am
    I see you mention the handheld is now 37mm aperture instead of 40mm. This cuts down the resolving power even further towards a min sunspot width of about 2500 km’s.
    The real limit is set by seeing not by the size of the telescope. In any event, using the handheld automatically excludes the pores and small spots that Wolf neglected to count using the 80mm telescope. He multiplied the count by 1.5, which then must be multiplied by 1/0.6 to be comparable to Wolfer’s count, for a total of 1.5/0.6=2.5.

    Did you find out if Locarno measures the magnification at the viewing lens or at the projected drawing?
    No, as it is irrelevant: the size of the projected drawing [25cm] is what counts.

  75. Dr. Lurtz says:

    Ah, Sunspots are like age spots, who cares?

    Now when an old man farts that’s a smelly event. How bad does your 10.7cm flux smell??

  76. rbateman says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 9, 2011 at 6:19 am

    An Aperture of 1.46 inches is equivalent to 37 millimeters.
    Dawes Limit for that Aperture is 3.13 arc seconds.

    Dawes Limit is a theoretical maximum. A more practical estimate of resolving power is 3.24 arc seconds as given by Brian D. Mason in Observer’s Handbook 2000, page 236.
    ————-
    An Aperture of 3.15 inches is equivalent to 80 millimeters.
    Dawes Limit for that Aperture is 1.45 arc seconds.

    Dawes Limit is a theoretical maximum. A more practical estimate of resolving power is 1.50 arc seconds as given by Brian D. Mason in Observer’s Handbook 2000, page 236.

    For the 37 mm scope, under perfect skies, given a Sun subtending 30′ of arc, and a resolution of 3.24″ of arc (given perfect optics with zero abberations -including filter) one could observe 1.033x10E6 pores.
    For the 80 mm scope, under perfect skies, given a Sun subtending 30′ of arc and a resolution of 1.5″ of arc, one could observe .022 x 10E6 sub pores.
    But, one is using a filter, which is not the same as the full amount of light being spread out as in projection.

    There is much more to be proven out here.
    Actual concurent side-by-side documented test cases need to be performed.
    And the results have to be repeatable, yes?

  77. Casper says:

    The sun’s activity is one the way!
    God saves the AGW and our grands…

  78. rbateman says:
    April 9, 2011 at 10:16 am
    For the 37 mm scope, under perfect skies
    For the 80 mm scope, under perfect skies
    But, one is using a filter, which is not the same as the full amount of light being spread out as in projection.
    Of course a filter is used. For the 80mm [actually 83mm] scope it is still the old Merz Polarization Helioscope [probably made near 1823]. But the perfect sky condition is never achieved. Normally, seeing is the limiting factor [as long as the aperture is about 40mm or higher] and the telescope doesn’t really matter.

    Actual concurent side-by-side documented test cases need to be performed.
    And the results have to be repeatable, yes?

    All this has been gone over by hundreds of observers over the centuries and the results are very repeatable. For modern instruments you can compare Catania http://web.ct.astro.it/sun/draw.jpg and Locarno http://www.specola.ch/e/drawings.html [wait for a day where they both observe, or look at Figure 11 of http://www.leif.org/research/http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspot-Calibration.pdf , work in progress]. You can clearly see the effect of the superior seeing at Catania. But, again, this is largely irrelevant as the observations with the Wolf telescopes are and have already been made by visual inspection [no drawings produced]. Before Waldmeier stopped the commendable publication of individual observations in 1945, you have the raw data available, so we can compare counts. Also Keller and Friedli have continued observations with both the original telescopes and their counts are easily compared.

  79. Carla says:

    Norman Page says:
    April 8, 2011 at 7:28 am
    Leif – your sector boundary explanation sounds plausible – but do you have any data to support it? Solar wind velocity change at the appropriate time for example.
    The 3% was just the initial drop – total was 5% + in a week or so – would be very significant if it continues.
    ~
    You might find plotting the so called space age high cosmic ray years interesting.
    From the Moscow neutron monitor I input 2005 April 7 to 2011 April 7. Also used the 27 day corrected for pressure.
    That extra year with its all time high GCR counts didn’t go un noticed to some of us. We saw extra precip in all its glorious forms throughout planet increase.

    Been thinking again about how abrasion might be playing a role in the cosmic ray increase, taking place in the Earth’s magnetosphere.. er maybe.. hmm how bout this as part of the increase scenario..
    During times of higher solar activity, high energy cosmic rays are swept away by higher solar wind speeds etc..
    During these miniumn times we see a more steady erosion of Earth’s magnetic field during reconnection periods without sufficient recovery time before the next solar wind stream/sector boudary change just blows those cosmic rays in through a more frequently left open doorway..

    Leif, did you know that NASA not only calls spring aurora season but also calls spring “FireBall Season.” huh lol hahaha eek gads

  80. Carla says:
    April 9, 2011 at 2:12 pm
    You might find plotting the so called space age high cosmic ray years interesting.
    From the Moscow neutron monitor I input 2005 April 7 to 2011 April 7. Also used the 27 day corrected for pressure.

    Moscow had severe instrumental problem over this minimum, especially at the very peak of its record at the end of April 2009. That increase was artificial and has nothing to do with reality.

    That extra year with its all time high GCR counts didn’t go un noticed to some of us.
    Yeah, you are very good at ascribing all kinds of nonsense to instrumental glitches, noise, and such.

  81. Carla says:
    April 9, 2011 at 2:12 pm
    You might find plotting the so called space age high cosmic ray years interesting.
    From the Moscow neutron monitor I input 2005 April 7 to 2011 April 7.

    Moscow had severe instrumental problem over this minimum, especially at the very peak of its record at the end of April 2009. That increase was artificial and has nothing to do with reality, here is a comparison Moscow-Oulu http:/www.leif.org/research/Moscow-Oulu-2009.png

  82. Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 9, 2011 at 2:38 pm
    That increase was artificial and has nothing to do with reality, here is a comparison Moscow-Oulu http://www.leif.org/research/Moscow-Oulu-2009.png

  83. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 9, 2011 at 6:19 am

    The real limit is set by seeing not by the size of the telescope.

    This statement is incorrect. The 37mm telescope cannot resolve beyond 3 arc seconds, viewing conditions in the right places can get down to .5 arc seconds.

    Did you find out if Locarno measures the magnification at the viewing lens or at the projected drawing?
    ————————————-
    No, as it is irrelevant: the size of the projected drawing [25cm] is what counts.

    What you are saying is that magnification is not important, which is wrong. This issue is yet to be resolved.

  84. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 10, 2011 at 10:19 pm
    This statement is incorrect. The 37mm telescope cannot resolve beyond 3 arc seconds, viewing conditions in the right places can get down to .5 arc seconds.
    ‘Right places’ don’t matter because Wolf had to contend with the places where he was. In the middle of a city. BTW, sunspot smaller than 3″ counts as pores and were not counted by Wolf. His use of the handheld (plus seeing) automatically insured that he could not see the pores or the small spots just above pore size. He compensated for that be multiplying his counts by 1.5. As I said, once the telescope is large enough its aperture doesn’t matter as seeing sets the limit. Study the upper right hand panel of this figure that shows the k-factor as a function of aperture size: http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-80mm-Telescope.png. You may safely assume that when I say something about solar observing it is not incorrect. Medium seeing [seeing indicator 2-3] is when the image motion is 3-5 arcseconds.

    What you are saying is that magnification is not important, which is wrong. This issue is yet to be resolved.
    Referring to the above, the seeing is the limit once you are above certain size issues [which Locarno is]. So this is not an unresolved ‘issue’, just a FUD strawman. Here is for comparison drawings of a recent group from NSO [image 82 cm], MWO [image 42 cm] and Locarno [image 25]: http://www.leif.org/research/NSO-MWO-Locarno-Spots.png. As you can see the telescope doesn’t matter [once large enough].

  85. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 11, 2011 at 7:48 am

    As I said, once the telescope is large enough its aperture doesn’t matter as seeing sets the limit

    The 37mm telescope is not large enough, this is the point you are not seeing. The 37mm telescope is the backbone of Wolf’s counting method.

    The Locarno telescope stopped down to 80mm is used as the worlds benchmark for viewing sunspots, but in association this same organization (SIDC) incorporates a highly inflated counted method to achieve an end result. Catania and NOAA who use superior optics and a regular non inflated counting procedure come up with a count which matches closely the Locarno result. If Locarno did not add the Waldmeier factor they would be way out of step with Catania and NOAA, this is not just a function of better telescope placement.

  86. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 11, 2011 at 8:50 am
    The 37mm telescope is not large enough, this is the point you are not seeing. The 37mm telescope is the backbone of Wolf’s counting method.
    What nonsense. I keep telling you that the 37mm is too small and that Wolf scaled his count by multiplying by 1.5 to match the real backbone, his 83mm standard refractor.

    The Locarno telescope stopped down to 80mm is used as the worlds benchmark for viewing sunspots, but in association this same organization (SIDC) incorporates a highly inflated counted method to achieve an end result.
    As I have shown repeatedly, SIDC undercounts [best seen by comparing with Keller/Friedli using the original Wolf telescope, but comparison with every other counting organization shows the same, e.g Figures 24-25 of http://www.leif.org/research/Eddy-Symp-Poster-1.pdf ]. Nobody is trying to achieve an ‘end result’. Everybody does the best work possible, in contrast to people [wrongly] thinking that Wolf’s series is ‘under threat’.

    Catania and NOAA who use superior optics and a regular non inflated counting procedure come up with a count which matches closely the Locarno result.
    NOAAs count is derived from a network of observers which mostly use the recommended small telescope size. Catania has superb seeing so see a bit more. These people do not try to align themselves with the International sunspot number, i.e. don’t apply the 0.6 factor [as I'm advocating SIDC should stop doing too]. Nobody is ‘inflating’ anything. Most people understand the difference between a scale factor and an inflation. Fahrenheit is not inflated Centigrade.

    If Locarno did not add the Waldmeier factor they would be way out of step with Catania and NOAA, this is not just a function of better telescope placement.
    http://www.leif.org/research/Catania-2007-July-13.png shows clearly the difference good seeing [depending on better placement] makes. Catania’s spot count [with seeing=1 (best)] is 35 versus Locarno’s 17 [with seeing 2-3=medium]. Most of that comes from the many small spots and pores, not from the weighting. Incidentally, Catania makes a distinction between spots [their 's' count which was 8 on that day] and pores [their 'p' count which was 27]. And if you exclude the pores, you actually get an approximation to what Wolf would have counted.

  87. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 11, 2011 at 10:04 am
    What nonsense. I keep telling you that the 37mm is too small and that Wolf scaled his count by multiplying by 1.5 to match the real backbone, his 83mm standard refractor.

    Think about it. Wolf used a threshold. This threshold must have been observable in his 37mm telescope. (zero x 1.5 = zero). The 37mm is constrained mainly by its aperture which sees less than most viewing days atmospheric conditions. The LSC handheld replica shows me what size sunspot can be viewed with a visible penumbra which Wolf most likely used as his threshold. That size spot continually comes out at the LSC threshold of 333 pixels on the SDO images. This gives a reasonable calibration that you continually spruke is not present.

    As I have shown repeatedly, SIDC undercounts

    No you havent. What you have shown is mainly a comparison of amateur astronomers but did not include the NOAA results. You said yourself a few days ago the long term factor average between SIDC and NOAA is 0.65. The SIDC is over counting compared to NOAA which I have shown you multiple times via graphs.

    Nobody is ‘inflating’ anything. Most people understand the difference between a scale factor and an inflation. Fahrenheit is not inflated Centigrade.

    The SIDC are inflating by invoking the Waldmeier counting method.

    I have been comparing Catania/Locarno drawings on a daily basis for nearly 2 years and there is no doubt that Catania draw more specks than Locarno. This is also observed when both sites have similar viewing conditions.

    The differences between the telescopes is easily observable. These differences have been balanced out by employing different counting methods. The important aspect that is emerging is the all important Wolf threshold size.

  88. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 11, 2011 at 6:20 pm
    Wolf used a threshold. This threshold must have been observable in his 37mm telescope. (zero x 1.5 = zero). The 37mm is constrained mainly by its aperture which sees less than most viewing days atmospheric conditions.
    wolf did not have a well-defined threshold. The closets we can get to what he did is his mentioning that he did not count the small spots that would require the best seeing to be visible.

    visible penumbra which Wolf most likely used as his threshold.
    No the penumbra has nothing to do with it. The threshold was determined by the seeing as I just explained.

    This gives a reasonable calibration that you continually spruke is not present.
    your LSC has no calibration. except what you want it to be.

    As I have shown repeatedly, SIDC undercounts
    No you havent. What you have shown is mainly a comparison of amateur astronomers but did not include the NOAA results.
    The amateurs are the very best. There are hundreds of them and they are meticulous and dedicated. NOAA is also basing their numbers on a selection of amateur observers.

    You said yourself a few days ago the long term factor average between SIDC and NOAA is 0.65. The SIDC is over counting compared to NOAA which I have shown you multiple times via graphs.
    You have shown nothing of the kind. Here is a real comparison: http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-NOAA.png
    The time of undercounting by SIDC is marked with red, open triangles. The mean of those points is 0.601. Partly due to my needling them, SIDC is beginning to improve on that as the green triangles show. Their long term ratio is 0.659. The green ratio before the undercounting period began in 2001 was 0.662, and recently [green triangles after the red one] is has been 0.639, so they have improved. but are not quite there yet. I think we have gone around the bush too many times on this. Man up and accept the data so we don’t need to do this again, and again, and again…

    “Nobody is ‘inflating’ anything. Most people understand the difference between a scale factor and an inflation. Fahrenheit is not inflated Centigrade.”
    The SIDC are inflating by invoking the Waldmeier counting method.

    The official sunspot number has been based on the Waldmeier weighting since 1945 at least. Nothing to do with SIDC.

    I have been comparing Catania/Locarno drawings on a daily basis for nearly 2 years and there is no doubt that Catania draw more specks than Locarno. This is also observed when both sites have similar viewing conditions.
    Of course the do, they have better seeing. You last statement is unfounded. Perhaps you can show your detailed, numerical analysis of this…

    The differences between the telescopes is easily observable.
    As I showed in http://www.leif.org/research/Catania-2007-July-13.png The difference is due to seeing.

    The important aspect that is emerging is the all important Wolf threshold size.
    Nobody cares [or should care] about the ill-defined Wolf threshold [based on seeing] as the true calibration [as Wolf himself used] is provided by the correspondence with the geomagnetic record. Furthermore whatever Wolf did has no bearing on the sunspot number before 1849. Wolf himself [~1874] upped his reconstruction before that by a wholesale 25% to match the true calibration from the magnetic needle.

  89. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 11, 2011 at 7:58 pm

    Your arguments are getting weaker, not at all convincing.

    You have shown nothing of the kind. Here is a real comparison:

    Why bother with a confusing graph when NOAA themselves publish the difference to SIDC. SC24 shows the SIDC counting higher than NOAA…end of story. The same pattern is observed if we go back further.

    http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sidc_noaa1.png

    Of course the do, they have better seeing. You last statement is unfounded. Perhaps you can show your detailed, numerical analysis of this…

    It is not easy to find images drawn at the same time and having the same seeing conditions at this time of year. But the 30th March provides an example.

    http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2011/loc-d20110330.JPG
    ftp://ftp.ct.astro.it/../../sundraw/OAC_D_20110330_091000.JPG
    http://jsoc.stanford.edu/data/hmi/images/2011/03/30/20110330_094500_Ic_flat_4k.jpg

    Both Catania and Locarno have seeing conditions of 2. The drawings are 35 minutes apart plus I have provided the SDO image that corresponds with Locarno.
    There is extra detail in the Catania drawing which provides more specks and the detail in the penumbra/umbra area is far more accurate in the Catania drawings when you compare with the SDO image. I have compared many Locarno drawings with the SDO image and it is obvious on some days they are guessing or fudging a little because of the poorer resolution.

    The overall raw count for this day:

    Locarno – 110

    Catania – 88

    NOAA – 91

    The SIDC official discounted figure for the day is 68 which is very close to Locarno x .6 showing the Waldmeier factor in full force. NOAA x .6 is 54.6. The LSC value for the same day was 50.

    Agreed that Catania has better seeing on average than Locarno, but the telescope factor along with the Waldmeier factor are clearly evident. Most days would have Catania with better seeing which takes up the balance and brings their results closer together. The elephant in the room is that NOAA do not use the inflated Waldmeier counting method but still come reasonably close to the SIDC value when measured over the longer term, the SIDC are not undercounting when comparing with NOAA.

    Wolf did not have the benefit of the extra observers, or the clearer skies and mainly used his 37mm telescope with a filter. There is no way you can claim the two counting methods can be compared, and this is before applying the big jump imposed by the Waldmeier factor.

  90. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 12, 2011 at 2:05 am
    Why bother with a confusing graph when NOAA themselves publish the difference to SIDC. SC24 shows the SIDC counting higher than NOAA…end of story. The same pattern is observed if we go back further.
    The ‘confusing’ graph is NOAA’s and SIDC’s own data. This is real data. Clearly you don’t like what they show, but that is understandable in view of your agenda.

    http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sidc_noaa1.png
    As the long-term ratio is 0.66, use that instead of 0.60 and show the result.

    But the 30th March provides an example.
    Both Catania and Locarno have seeing conditions of 2.
    There is extra detail in the Catania drawing which provides more specks and the detail in the penumbra/umbra area

    Not at all, the other way around [if there is any difference]: http://www.leif.org/research/Catania-Locarno-March-30.png

    The overall raw count for this day:
    The SIDC official discounted figure for the day is 68 which is very close to Locarno x .6 showing the Waldmeier factor in full force. NOAA x .6 is 54.6. The LSC value for the same day was 50.
    You should not use 0.6 for NOAA, when the real k-factor is closer to 0.66. 0.66*91= 60. The day you so carefully cherry picked had a very atypical ratio SIDC/NOAA as you can see here: [pink square]
    http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-NOAA-Recent-Ratios.png

    Agreed that Catania has better seeing on average than Locarno, but the telescope factor along with the Waldmeier factor are clearly evident.
    I just showed you that on the day you picked Locarno saw more detail than Catania. The Waldmeier factor is irrelevant because that apples to all days since 1945 and is simply built into the k-factor.
    As I said, once the telescope is large enough its aperture doesn’t matter as seeing sets the limit. Study the upper right hand panel of this figure that shows the k-factor as a function of aperture size: http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-80mm-Telescope.png.
    No dependence on telescope above, say 60mm. One might actually argue that the k-factor is smallest [smaller k: see more spots] around 80-100mm and that a larger telescope makes it worse.

    The elephant in the room is that NOAA do not use the inflated Waldmeier counting method but still come reasonably close to the SIDC value when measured over the longer term
    Nonsense, NOAA adjusts the individual [many] amateur observers using the SIDC numbers to ensure that they stay close to the nominal 0.6. They are not quite successful, but close enough for Government work.

    the SIDC are not undercounting when comparing with NOAA.
    That you repeat this falsehood, does not make it true. On your own plot, use the 0.66 scaling factor instead of 0.60, and show us.

    Wolf did not have the benefit of the extra observers, or the clearer skies and mainly used his 37mm telescope with a filter.
    He had several assistants and an extensive network of external observers. He himself found that he could compensate for the smaller scope by multiplying his counts by 1.5 to align it with his standard telescope, the 80mm. Should we not trust him on that? Who can best judge this? Wolf or us? I’ll go with Wolf on that.

    There is no way you can claim the two counting methods can be compared, and this is before applying the big jump imposed by the Waldmeier factor.
    I’m not making that claim, Wolfer from 16 years of simultaneous observations [Wolfer using the 80mm and Wolf using the 37mm] is making that claim based on thousands of observations. In any event, Wolfer’s is the better way [every competent observer agrees] and the best we can do with the old Wolf data is to correct its deficiencies by comparing with the geomagnetic record, which actually works pretty well [Wolf did that himself with the data before 1849].

  91. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 12, 2011 at 2:05 am
    Why bother with a confusing graph when NOAA themselves publish the difference to SIDC. SC24 shows the SIDC counting higher than NOAA…end of story. The same pattern is observed if we go back further.
    The ‘confusing’ graph is NOAA’s and SIDC’s own data. This is real data. Clearly you don’t like what they show, but that is understandable in view of your agenda.

    http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sidc_noaa1.png
    As the long-term ratio is 0.66, use that instead of 0.60 and show the result.

    But the 30th March provides an example.
    Both Catania and Locarno have seeing conditions of 2.
    There is extra detail in the Catania drawing which provides more specks and the detail in the penumbra/umbra area

    Not at all, the other way around [if there is any difference]: http://www.leif.org/research/Catania-Locarno-March-30.png

    The overall raw count for this day:
    The SIDC official discounted figure for the day is 68 which is very close to Locarno x .6 showing the Waldmeier factor in full force. NOAA x .6 is 54.6. The LSC value for the same day was 50.

    You should not use 0.6 for NOAA, when the real k-factor is closer to 0.66. 0.66*91= 60. The day you so carefully cherry picked had a very atypical ratio SIDC/NOAA as you can see here: [pink square]
    http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-NOAA-Recent-Ratios.png

    Agreed that Catania has better seeing on average than Locarno, but the telescope factor along with the Waldmeier factor are clearly evident.
    I just showed you that on the day you picked Locarno saw more detail than Catania. The Waldmeier factor is irrelevant because that apples to all days since 1945 and is simply built into the k-factor.
    As I said, once the telescope is large enough its aperture doesn’t matter as seeing sets the limit. Study the upper right hand panel of this figure that shows the k-factor as a function of aperture size: http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-80mm-Telescope.png .
    No dependence on telescope above, say 60mm. One might actually argue that the k-factor is smallest [smaller k: see more spots] around 80-100mm and that a larger telescope makes it worse. This is the reason most sunspot observers use small telescopes of about this size.

    The elephant in the room is that NOAA do not use the inflated Waldmeier counting method but still come reasonably close to the SIDC value when measured over the longer term
    Nonsense, NOAA adjusts the individual [many] amateur observers using the SIDC numbers to ensure that NOAA stays close to the nominal 0.6. They are not quite successful, but close enough for Government work.

    the SIDC are not undercounting when comparing with NOAA.
    That you repeat this falsehood, does not make it true. On your own plot, use the 0.66 scaling factor instead of 0.60, and show us. Here is the real data:
    http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-NOAA.png
    The time of undercounting by SIDC is marked with red, open triangles. The mean of those points is 0.601. Partly due to my needling them, SIDC is beginning to improve on that as the green triangles show. Their long term ratio is 0.659. The green ratio before the undercounting period began in 2001 was 0.662, and recently [green triangles after the red one] is has been 0.639, so they have improved. but are not quite there yet. I think we have gone around the bush too many times on this. Man up and accept the data so we don’t need to do this again, and again, and again… [seems we still have to...]

    Wolf did not have the benefit of the extra observers, or the clearer skies and mainly used his 37mm telescope with a filter.
    He had several assistants and an extensive network of external observers. He himself found that he could compensate for the smaller scope by multiplying his counts by 1.5 to align it with his standard telescope, the 80mm. Should we not trust him on that? Who can best judge this? Wolf or us? I’ll go with Wolf on that.

    There is no way you can claim the two counting methods can be compared, and this is before applying the big jump imposed by the Waldmeier factor.
    I’m not making that claim, Wolfer from 16 years of simultaneous observations [Wolfer using the 80mm and Wolf using the 37mm] is making that claim based on thousands of observations. In any event, Wolfer’s is the better way [every competent observer agrees] and the best we can do with the old Wolf data is to correct its deficiencies by comparing with the geomagnetic record, which actually works pretty well [Wolf did that himself with the data before 1849].

  92. Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 12, 2011 at 8:30 am
    http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sidc_noaa1.png
    As the long-term ratio is 0.66, use that instead of 0.60 and show the result.

    Anticipating that you will not do this [too painful?] I have done it for you. Here is what your plot should look like:
    http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-NOAA-2010-2011.png

  93. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 12, 2011 at 10:42 am

    Anticipating that you will not do this [too painful?] I have done it for you. Here is what your plot should look like:
    http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-NOAA-2010-2011.png

    The fact that you have to go higher than 0.6 says it all. Looking at the long term trend there is nothing to show the SIDC is under counting compared with NOAA.

    http://www.landscheidt.info/images/noaa_sidc_factor.png

    If we look deeper at the daily records more can be uncovered. Locarno measured 23 days in March. If we total the raw count from Locarno over those days we get 2125. The same exercise done with NOAA’s raw count shows us 1877. Over those 23 days the difference between the SIDC finished count and Locarno raw is a factor of 0.66. It doesnt matter which way you slice and dice, the SIDC counted higher than NOAA for March.

    When comparing the Catania and Locarno drawings for 30th March it would be more honest to look at the whole drawings. Catania counts more specks and is a better representation of the umbral areas.

  94. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 12, 2011 at 7:36 pm
    “Here is what your plot should look like:
    http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-NOAA-2010-2011.png
    The fact that you have to go higher than 0.6 says it all. Looking at the long term trend there is nothing to show the SIDC is under counting compared with NOAA.

    There is nothing magical about the 0.6. The long-term mean is 0.6592, so one must use that. All other observers agree that SIDC is too low after some time in 2001. Your graph is flawed: you should not connect the points with a line. Other than that, your graph is no different from mine so “Why bother with a confusing graph”.

    If we look deeper at the daily records more can be uncovered. Locarno measured 23 days in March. If we total the raw count from Locarno over those days we get 2125. The same exercise done with NOAA’s raw count shows us 1877.
    Actually NOAA’s is 1904.
    Over those 23 days the difference between the SIDC finished count and Locarno raw is a factor of 0.66.
    SIDC for those 23 days has a sum of 1296, 1296/2125 = 0.61, not 0.66 as you claim. Perhaps be a bit more candid with the numbers. Helps credibility.
    It doesnt matter which way you slice and dice, the SIDC counted higher than NOAA for March.
    You can always find single values that are higher, it is called cherry picking. On March 20th NOAA was 47, SIDC was 21, to compare with your 0.6*47=28, so SIDC was seriously undercounted by 7 or 25%! The sum for SIDC for those 23 days was 1296 and for NOAA it was 1904, so SIDC was clearly MUCH smaller than NOAA. The question here is, of course, what k-value to multiply with, and that value is 0.659.

    When comparing the Catania and Locarno drawings for 30th March it would be more honest to look at the whole drawings. Catania counts more specks and is a better representation of the umbral areas.
    So we look at the second large group: http://www.leif.org/research/Catania-Locarno-2-March-30.png and, lo and behold, we see the same thing that Locarno is much sharper and better defined. Especially the umbral structures and the little ‘tail’ on the largest umbra. This is what ‘more honest’ is.
    There is a little trick that the observers have learned and that is to wait a bit on a group and watch for those brief moments of good seeing that often occur, even with mediocre general seeing. This is where the experience of the observer becomes important.

    So, to summarize:
    1) the telescope doesn’t matter, seeing does
    2) SIDC undercounted NOAA [and everybody else] from sometime in 2001, to recover somewhat [but not fully yet] in 2010.
    3) nobody is playing tricks with this. I know personally all the parties at SIDC, Locarno, NOAA, and RWG [Switzerland], and can vouch for their integrity and for their careful and meticulous work.
    4) Wolf’s old data [and those of observers before him] can be reconstructed to match the well-defined modern method of counting spots that Wolfer introduced.
    5) the Waldmeier jump in ~1945 is unfortunate, but can be corrected for.
    6) efforts are under way to clean up the confusion and get to reliable common series, celebrating Wolf’s great contribution [even to call the result the Wolf Number], e.g. our Sunspot Calibration Workshop at Sunspot, New Mexico, 18-23 Sept. 2011.

    This should be a fitting note to end the [otherwise fruitless] discussion on.

  95. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 12, 2011 at 7:36 pm
    When comparing the Catania and Locarno drawings for 30th March it would be more honest to look at the whole drawings. Catania counts more specks and is a better representation of the umbral areas.
    I added Mount Wilson with its large 42 cm image. Aperture 12 inches = 305mm, focal length 150 foot = 45720mm. Seeing was also 2 at MWO [although they use a reversed scale - but since 2 is near the middle that doesn't matter]. As you can see it makes no difference to the sunspot image. Even Bill Livingston’s 82 cm image does not make any difference.
    http://www.leif.org/research/Catania-Locarno-March-30.png
    http://www.leif.org/research/Catania-Locarno-2-March-30.png

  96. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 12, 2011 at 9:29 pm

    Lots of text, pictures and bluff but still unable to refute my points. There was an error in one value but there is undeniable difference in the NOAA/SIDC count difference for March. I calculated the .66 factor via a different method (your method is better)which really changes nothing. The numbers say it all along with the long term graph, you have absolutely no evidence that the SIDC is under counting compared to NOAA. The long term graph since 2001 shows a rough 0.6 factor which is where it should be. Prior to that there were some irregular periods.

    Your take on the Locarno/Catania images is expected. You wish to see what you wish to see, but forget to mention the speck count is higher via the Catania image. I will keep a gallery of these types of results on the LSC page as they come to hand, letting other people make up their own minds.

    To summarize:

    (1) The telescope does matter. The 37mm can see less than the atmosphere allows on a good day. The 150mm Catania telescope will pick up minor specks that Locarno can’t resolve (more proof to come).

    (2 )You have shown no evidence that the SIDC is under counting NOAA.

    (3) I never said anyone was playing tricks.

    (4) Wolf’s data was not able to be cross checked by Wolfer during the higher speck activity of a grand minimum.

    (5) The Waldmeier jump is extremely unfortunate and is still part of the modern record (SIDC only, but how does NOAA come to a similar count without the factor?). This extreme jump is largely taken out in the LSC.

    (6) The confusion does need to be sorted out. Meanwhile we have the LSC for comparing against the Dalton.

    (7) This conversation started out discussing that SIDC had over counted NOAA during March. This is beyond question. (o.69)

  97. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 13, 2011 at 12:30 am
    you have absolutely no evidence that the SIDC is under counting compared to NOAA. The long term graph since 2001 shows a rough 0.6 factor which is where it should be. Prior to that there were some irregular periods.
    SIDC is undercounting since 2001 compared to NOAA as the k-factor before that was 0.662 (0.677) and after 2001 0.591 (0.608). You can compute k three ways: ratio between average count, average of ratios on every months [or whatever period you select] (those are the numbers in parenthesis, or [the best, correct, and recommended by Wolf] only compare days where both observers have non-zero spot count. Taking the mean of the two methods gives k=0.6695 before 2001 and 0.5995 after. A difference of 12%. Comparing SIDC with SONNE, AAVSO, AKS, BAA, GFOES, GSRSI, OAA, RWG, TOS, and VVS [see: http://www.leif.org/research/Eddy-Symp-Poster-1.pdf slides 24-25] show that relative to all those [hundreds of] observers, SIDC undercounted by the same 12% [meaning that it was not NOAA that had changed]. So, it is conclusive that SIDC undercounted as I’ve said. Keep denying that reflects badly on you.

    forget to mention the speck count is higher via the Catania image.
    On the images you selected both observatories have the same speck count [16] and very nearly the same total spot count [38 and 36 - not weighted]. So, no difference on that carefully cherry picked image pairs.

    (1) The telescope does matter. The 37mm can see less than the atmosphere allows on a good day. The 150mm Catania telescope will pick up minor specks that Locarno can’t resolve (more proof to come).
    As I’ve said so many times [when does it sink in?], the 37cm is too small. The telescope has to be bigger than ~60mm. Wolf compensated for the smaller telescope by multiplying by 1.5. BTW, both Catania and Locarno have the same aperture, 15 cm. The stop down at Locarno actually improves the count, rather than making it smaller [Sergio, pers. comm], as about 80mm is optimal for sunspot counting. Any difference between observatories is due to seeing [and/or observer experience].

    (2 )You have shown no evidence that the SIDC is under counting NOAA.
    Just shown above.

    (3) I never said anyone was playing tricks.
    Oh, yes. “Wolf under threat”. You have hinted many times that you think there are deliberate mal-counting.

    (4) Wolf’s data was not able to be cross checked by Wolfer during the higher speck activity of a grand minimum.
    It was not Wolf’s data. He wasn’t even born. The data Wolf used was auroral counts scaled to sunspot numbers. Making any discussion of threshold meaningless.

    (5) The Waldmeier jump is extremely unfortunate and is still part of the modern record (SIDC only, but how does NOAA come to a similar count without the factor?). This extreme jump is largely taken out in the LSC.
    NOAA come to a similar count because they deliberately try to align themselves with SIDC [a bit tough since SIDC is a moving target]. The NOAA numbers are a continuation of the American Sunspot Numbers [AAVSO, see http://www.leif.org/EOS/Hossfield-2002JAVSO-31-48.pdf ] and were originally scaled by the infamous ~0.6 factor because existing nomograms used by the US Navy were calibrated to the Zurich scale. Those nomograms are no longer used, so NOAA does not scale any longer to Zurich, but still uses SIDC as a benchmark when calculating individual k-values for the observers. That guarantees that they don’t stray too far away.

    (6) The confusion does need to be sorted out. Meanwhile we have the LSC for comparing against the Dalton.
    The LSC is useless for that purpose, because it is not calibrated and because the Dalton numbers are not based on sunspots, but on auroral counts. Wolf himself reduced the sunspot-based count [by other observers] by up to 60% when he got [around 1880] a catalog of Swedish aurorae compiled by Rubenson. There is a good explanation of this in Encycl. Britannica, 11th editon (1910). vol 2, pages 927-934.

    (7) This conversation started out discussing that SIDC had over counted NOAA during March. This is beyond question. (o.69)
    One swallow does not a summer make. You should know that one cannot base general behavior on an isolated case. For April [so far] the ratio is down to 0.586. For February it was 0.550. For January it was 0.600.

    Can we now put this to rest?

  98. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 13, 2011 at 12:30 am
    (2 )You have shown no evidence that the SIDC is under counting NOAA.Not NOAA specifically, everybody else. Comparison with all observers shows that it is SIDC that is the odd-man-out: http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-Undercounting.pgn
    To construct this graph, you scale all observers to SIDC before 2001.7. As you can see they all agree with each other and SIDC up to that time. Then use that scaling for the time since 2001.7. You can see that they no longer agree with SIDC [SIDC, the red curve, is too low compared to all the rest]. If the assumption that the scalings before and after 2001.7 were not the same, then NOAA [green curve] and “Rest of the World” [blue curve] would not agree as well as they do.
    P.S. your rantings about ‘bluff’ is not becoming a gentleman, and is a poor excuse for ignoring the facts.

  99. Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 13, 2011 at 8:46 am
    Geoff Sharp says:
    April 13, 2011 at 12:30 am

    the odd-man-out: http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-Undercounting.png

  100. Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 13, 2011 at 8:47 am
    Geoff Sharp says:
    April 13, 2011 at 12:30 am

    BTW, take care when using NOAA or SWPC values. Their monthly values in
    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/RecentIndices.txt have transcription errors, e.g. for April 2003 which should be [calculated from the daily values] 114.3, not the repeat of March’s 119.7. Same problem for November 2003 which should be 103.0, not a repetition of October’s 118.9.

  101. Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 13, 2011 at 8:47 am
    BTW, take care when using NOAA or SWPC values. Their monthly values in
    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/RecentIndices.txt have transcription errors,

    And also June 2006 which is listed as 37.7 but should be 24.4. There are undoubtedly others. Interestingly these errors were found because NOAA disagreed with the ‘rest of the World’. Recalculating the monthly means from the daily values corrected the errors and re-esatblished agreement with the “rest of the World”, showing the power of such comparisons.

  102. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 13, 2011 at 6:56 am

    SIDC is undercounting since 2001 compared to NOAA as the k-factor before that was 0.662 (0.677) and after 2001 0.591 (0.608).

    You previously stated the long term average was 0.66, now you are saying this only applies only before 2001?
    You will need to describe how you scaled the amateur records to match with the SIDC, no doubt there is devil in the detail. Interesting that NOAA did not match SIDC closely prior to 2001(your new graph shows NOAA matching SIDC pre 2001?) but the amateurs did. At the moment you are saying the amateurs are the world benchmark.

    On the images you selected both observatories have the same speck count [16] and very nearly the same total spot count [38 and 36 - not weighted]. So, no difference on that carefully cherry picked image pairs.

    pores counted 30/3
    Group Catania Locarno

    1176 8 4-6
    1183 6 5
    1181 1 0
    area 2 6 3

    The date was not cherry picked. As stated it is difficult to find images with the same good seeing this time of year.

    As I’ve said so many times [when does it sink in?], the 37cm is too small. The telescope has to be bigger than ~60mm
    The 37mm has a max seeing of greater than 3 arc seconds, good conditions allow around 1 arc second. This is important in determining the Wolf threshold size. I have shown that Catania count more pores under the same conditions as Locarno and will continue to do so.

    Oh, yes. “Wolf under threat”. You have hinted many times that you think there are deliberate mal-counting.

    This is your interpretation that I take offense to. The counting processes have changed due to evolution of methods and equipment, no doubt some ego’s involved also.

    It was not Wolf’s data. He wasn’t even born. The data Wolf used was auroral counts scaled to sunspot numbers. Making any discussion of threshold meaningless.

    You are confusing the issue. The Wolfer 0.6 k factor to align with Wolf was never tested in grand minimum conditions. You admit the L&P effect is now just a greater proportion of specks which places the Wolfer k factor in doubt during these times. The threshold maybe meaningless to you, but to others that are trying to reproduce history the threshold is important.

    NOAA come to a similar count because they deliberately try to align themselves with SIDC

    Could you explain how this is done and why it did not happen pre 2001?

    The LSC is useless for that purpose, because it is not calibrated and because the Dalton numbers are not based on sunspots

    The LSC is calibrated by the threshold that Wolf used in his 37mm telescope. The replica LSC 37mm cannot determine penumbra under 333 pixels. Wolf’s Dalton numbers are backed up by the Group Sunspot Number which has 117 extra observers.
    http://www.landscheidt.info/images/gsn_sval.png

    Can we now put this to rest?

    Not likely.

  103. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 13, 2011 at 6:39 pm
    You previously stated the long term average was 0.66, now you are saying this only applies only before 2001?
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 8, 2011 at 6:52 am
    “The long-term average ratio is 0.64.” Over all the data.
    I consider the SIDC undercounting after 2001 an exception and yes, the averages before and after 2001 must be treated separately. I hope that was clear enough, but from now on that should be clear [one can only hope].

    You will need to describe how you scaled the amateur records to match with the SIDC, no doubt there is devil in the detail.
    No devil. This is standard regression. I can describe the process thusly: To scale one observer to another ou plot the values of the observers against each other. Hre is the German organization SONNE vs SIDC:
    http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-SONNE-Regression-0.png
    Several things to be aware of. If the data points fall along or close to a straight line, you can do a linear regression to find the relationship. For the plot it is SIDC = 0.9755 * SONNE. There is actually a tiny linear offset, but it is [as is evident] so small (+0.8) that it can be neglected, but for every regression made, one has to check this, and if necessary include that in the formula. I used here the period 1996-2010 because I have fairly complete data for many organizations [SONNE, . Minor gaps do not matter, as the regression is done only on days [or months, as I actually use] where both series have data.

    One can now do this for all the organizations SONNE, AAVSO, BAA, GEFOES, OAA, RWG, TOS, VVS and calculate SIDC from each using the regression formula for that observatory. That gives you 8 lists [plus SIDC] of scaled, sunspot numbers. How well does the calculation do? That is given by the Coefficient of Determination, R-squared, which is 0.9898 for SIDC from SONNE. This means that 98.98% of the wiggles match in position and relative size. We express this by saying the the formula ‘explains’ 98.98% of the variance. This is a VERY significant correlation. Much better than you normally get in science, where R^2 above 0.80 is considered very good.

    The next step is to plot all the scaled lists on the same graph. That allows several things to be gleaned: How well do the series match each others. Are there any that are obvious outliers and may have some problems? etc. Here is the result for the 8+SIDC lists: http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspot-Org-Comparison.png
    You note that all the black curves [one for each observatory] lie very close to each other, meaning that they all have the same calibration towards each other. All this can be [and was] checked and verified by standard statistical methods. But, note that the red curve [SIDC] does not fit so well: it is generally above the black ones before ~2000-2001, but below after that. This can be made clearer by also plotting a 12-month running mean [the dashed curves]. This we could not know beforehand. But with that knowledge, we can repeat the regression for all stations using the data split into pre-2001 and post-2001 parts. For SONNE that gives this plot: http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-SONNE-Regression.png and similar ones for all the other stations. We have now a choice to make: since for all stations the split seems to be around 2001 we can assume that either something happened at all stations at that time to upset their calibration, or that none of their calibrations changed, but SIDC’s did. I prefer the latter choice, but there are weird people out there that often claim silly things…
    The last step is now to repeat the calculation of the scaled SIDC for each observatories. Here we again have two choices: should we assume that SIDC before 2001 was good, but after 2001 was too low, or the other way around. For various reasons, I prefer the first assumption, so we recalculate using the regression equation for the 1996-2000 period throughout. We can also include NOAA in this and do the same for it. The result is the Figure you have seen before: http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-Undercounting.png, where the blue curve is the average of the ‘gang of eight’, the green curve is NOAA, and the red is SIDC. It is now without any doubt that SIDC is too low after 2001, thus ‘undercounting’.

    Interesting that NOAA did not match SIDC closely prior to 2001(your new graph shows NOAA matching SIDC pre 2001?) but the amateurs did.
    NOAA matches SIDC very closely [as all the other stations did] prior to 2001 as you can see at a glance. One call also compute various statistics on that as verification. Repeat: all observers agree with SIDC before 2001.

    At the moment you are saying the amateurs are the world benchmark.
    No, Locarno [Sergio Cortesi] is. SIDC play their cards very close to the vest about why they have a problem around 2001. You see the politics here: it is always difficult to get funding and if it gets out too widely or with too much fanfare that SIDC might be off or have calibration problems, the Belgian Government might say “well, if you can’t even count correctly, perhaps it is time to stop doing it…”

    “On the images you selected both observatories have the same speck count [16] and very nearly the same total spot count [38 and 36 - not weighted]. So, no difference on that carefully cherry picked image pairs.”
    1176 8 4-6, 1183 6 5, 1181 1 0, area 2 6 3

    No, specks 16 for both, real spots 22 for Catania and 20 for Locarno.

    The date was not cherry picked. As stated it is difficult to find images with the same good seeing this time of year.
    There are hundreds of drawings each year…

    The 37mm has a max seeing of greater than 3 arc seconds, good conditions allow around 1 arc second. This is important in determining the Wolf threshold size.
    No, because Wolf observed for a dozen years before ever using the 37mm and that time is when his scale was set. He multiplied by 1.5 to bring the 37mm up to his real threshold. But, nobody knows pr can know what his ‘threshold’ was. It is un-knowable which is why nobody in his right mind uses [or tries to resurrect] Wolf’s original method.

    I have shown that Catania count more pores under the same conditions as Locarno and will continue to do so.
    I showed you that Locarno on the example you selected was the best. Shall I show you again: http://www.leif.org/research/Catania-Locarno-March-30.png
    http://www.leif.org/research/Catania-Locarno-2-March-30.png
    Did you even bother to study them carefully or at least look at them?

    This is your interpretation that I take offense to.
    It is clear from reading your website and from your comments [and Robert's] that you think that there was some monkey business going on. There very word ‘inflated’ [that you use all the time] bears the same connotation. You can take offense all you will, your statements on this still stand. Or are you retracting them?

    “It was not Wolf’s data. He wasn’t even born. The data Wolf used was auroral counts scaled to sunspot numbers. Making any discussion of threshold meaningless.”
    You are confusing the issue. The Wolfer 0.6 k factor to align with Wolf was never tested in grand minimum conditions.

    If you plot the k-factor as a function of the sunspot number, you’ll find that there is no clear correlation. Nobody has observed the past 300 years during Grand Minimum conditions. The Dalton was not a Grand Minimum.

    You admit the L&P effect is now just a greater proportion of specks which places the Wolfer k factor in doubt during these times. The threshold maybe meaningless to you, but to others that are trying to reproduce history the threshold is important.
    The L&P effect [which you say is bad science, but now invoke when it suits] is indeed a dark horse in this. but that has nothing to do with the threshold if all the spots are gone. You cannot reconstruct history before 1849 by referring to Wolf’s ‘threshold’ as Wolf did not observe then. For the Dalton period, he used counts of Swedish aurorae as a proxy for the sunspot number.

    “NOAA come to a similar count because they deliberately try to align themselves with SIDC”
    Could you explain how this is done and why it did not happen pre 2001?

    I have asked them for their exact procedure, perhaps they’ll answer soon. They ‘try’, but do not quite succeed. Perhaps they think their result is good enough for Government work as we say here in the U.S. of A. At any rate, it is not only NOAA that is the issue. EVERY other observer have a pre-2001 problem, or rather SIDC has. As far as I can ascertain there has been no change at Locarno. It is possible that Locarno was used used as reference instead of SIDC and that SIDC somehow changed their complicated calculation [ http://www.leif.org/EOS/Clette_JASR8745.pdf ]. This is one of the things we eant to clear up at the workshop [if not sooner].

    The LSC is calibrated by the threshold that Wolf used in his 37mm telescope. The replica LSC 37mm cannot determine penumbra under 333 pixels.
    The problem is that having a penumbra is NOT the criterion for counting it as a spot or calling it a pore. The ‘real’ threshold was [as far a we know] twofold: the spot should look black in the 80mm [not grey] and it should not be so small that it could only be seen under very good seeing.

    The Wolf’s Dalton numbers are backed up by the Group Sunspot Number which has 117 extra observers.
    No, there were a total of 32 observers during 1800-1820 if which several were already used by Wolf. An additional problem was that many of these observers only made very few observations. Finally, the Group Sunspot Number has a very uncertain calibration at that time and is likely too small by some 40%. We have very little knowledge of what the actual number was. The geomagnetic record suggests something analogous to the 1900-1920 period. And in any event, the ‘threshold’ is completely irrelevant for this as Wolf was not observing.

    “Can we now put this to rest?”
    Not likely.

    My next door neighbor believes that the Earth is only 6000 years old, and nothing and nobody can shake that belief. He also say ‘not likely’.

  104. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 14, 2011 at 12:25 am

    “Can we now put this to rest?”
    Not likely.

    My next door neighbor believes that the Earth is only 6000 years old, and nothing and nobody can shake that belief. He also say ‘not likely’.

    That’s a doosy and quite ironic really. You have shown no movement from your position even when hard data (Cat/Loc specks)is presented.

    “The long-term average ratio is 0.64.” Over all the data.

    No your statement read:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 11, 2011 at 7:58 pm

    The time of undercounting by SIDC is marked with red, open triangles. The mean of those points is 0.601. Partly due to my needling them, SIDC is beginning to improve on that as the green triangles show. Their long term ratio is 0.659.

    No devil. This is standard regression. I can describe the process thusly: To scale one observer to another ou plot the values of the observers against each other. Hre is the German organization SONNE vs SIDC:………

    I think you are making this way too hard, and in the process misrepresenting the data. If I do a simple check on your graph it is obvious the monthly values for NOAA and SIDC are incorrect.
    If I plot the actual SIDC monthly figures and the NOAA monthly figures x 0.6 (std Wolfer factor) and just let the numbers fall I get a very different result. It agrees with my original graph and shows a discrepancy pre 2001. It is far more likely that you have it the wrong way around and the SIDC look to be over counting during two periods prior to 2001. This working on the assumption that the amateur records match NOAA.

    “The date was not cherry picked. As stated it is difficult to find images with the same good seeing this time of year.”
    There are hundreds of drawings each year…

    See how many days you can find this year where both drawings have the same seeing at 1 or 2 and with 30 mins of each other.

    There very word ‘inflated’ [that you use all the time] bears the same connotation. You can take offense all you will, your statements on this still stand. Or are you retracting them?
    Any use of the Waldmeier method infers inflation along with the use of the Wolfer 0.6 factor as it is not allowing for the higher speck ratio. Telescope placement and number of observers plus 24 hour observing is also an inflation that is part of the modern system, this is very different from “deliberate mal-counting”

    “NOAA come to a similar count because they deliberately try to align themselves with SIDC”
    Could you explain how this is done and why it did not happen pre 2001?
    I have asked them for their exact procedure, perhaps they’ll answer soon. They ‘try’, but do not quite succeed.

    So you really have no clue how they deliberately try to align.

    The L&P effect [which you say is bad science, but now invoke when it suits] is indeed a dark horse in this. but that has nothing to do with the threshold if all the spots are gone. You cannot reconstruct history before 1849 by referring to Wolf’s ‘threshold’ as Wolf did not observe then. For the Dalton period, he used counts of Swedish aurorae as a proxy for the sunspot number.

    If the L&P effect is just extra speck ratio, then all is good. But unfortunately the title of the paper suggests otherwise.

    The problem is that having a penumbra is NOT the criterion for counting it as a spot or calling it a pore. The ‘real’ threshold was [as far a we know] twofold: the spot should look black in the 80mm [not grey] and it should not be so small that it could only be seen under very good seeing.

    This further strengthens the LSC threshold.

    No, there were a total of 32 observers during 1800-1820 if which several were already used by Wolf. An additional problem was that many of these observers only made very few observations. Finally, the Group Sunspot Number has a very uncertain calibration at that time and is likely too small by some 40%. We have very little knowledge of what the actual number was. The geomagnetic record suggests something analogous to the 1900-1920 period. And in any event, the ‘threshold’ is completely irrelevant for this as Wolf was not observing.

    Correct, the 117 applies to the whole record. I will amend, but 32 observers over that time frame even allowing for “several” that were used by Wolf is a reasonable record over 20 years. Looking at the daily records there are some years in the early 1800′s that have missing days but the data would seem more reliable than using a proxy.
    Wolf would have dovetailed his reconstruction into his own count which is based on his threshold and proxy matching.

  105. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 14, 2011 at 5:36 pm
    That’s a doosy and quite ironic really. You have shown no movement from your position even when hard data (Cat/Loc specks)is presented.
    You could substantiate that by marking on my figure of the two groups which spot is a ‘speck’. Then we could count. You also ignore the observational evidence that I have shown you that the k-factor [once you are above ~60mm] does not depend on the aperture of the telescope: http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-80mm-Telescope.png . If anything it gets slightly worse with increasing aperture, the reason for the stop down at Locarno: Sergio found with varying sizes of the cardboard stop that 80mm gave better resolution [most specks] than if the original 150mm aperture was kept [which is what they have at Catania]. So, no wonder that Locarno has a sharper image than Catania [were it not for the seeing]. You can see the cardboard piece on the telescope here: http://www.specola.ch/img/cupola.JPG

    “April 8, 2011 at 6:52 am
    The long-term average ratio is 0.64.”
    No your statement read:
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 11, 2011 at 7:58 pm

    I had carefully given you the time [6:52] of my statement, yet you just pick another statement [7:58]:

    “The time of undercounting by SIDC is marked with red, open triangles. The mean of those points is 0.601. Partly due to my needling them, SIDC is beginning to improve on that as the green triangles show. Their long term ratio is 0.659.”
    Note that I said ‘Their long term ratio is 0.659′, referring to the green triangles [and they do just have that ratio]. Sad that you can get such things wrong. Most be deliberate.

    “No devil. This is standard regression. I can describe the process thusly: To scale one observer to another you plot the values of the observers against each other.”
    I think you are making this way too hard, and in the process misrepresenting the data. If I do a simple check on your graph it is obvious the monthly values for NOAA and SIDC are incorrect.

    Science is hard if done correctly. I think you didn’t even look at what I did. What you see on the graph are curves brought onto the same scale using the scale factors found by the regression. The scaled numbers would be slightly different from the raw data. This is the whole point of the exercise: if the number are not different from the raw data, they have not been scaled or brought onto the same scale.

    If I plot the actual SIDC monthly figures and the NOAA monthly figures x 0.6 (std Wolfer factor) and just let the numbers fall I get a very different result.
    The NOAA figures should not be multiplied by 0.6 as NOAA does not use the standard Wolfer factor, but by 0.64 [empirically found] for all the data as I said. You have not understood the ‘details’ in spite of my effort. Perhaps you didn’t even try. If you think it is wrong, point out where.

    This working on the assumption that the amateur records match NOAA.
    They do in the sense that they do not show any jump in 2001, but numerically they will not as they are not on the NOAA scale. See below on new information on the NOAA counts.

    “There are hundreds of drawings each year…”
    See how many days you can find this year where both drawings have the same seeing at 1 or 2 and with 30 mins of each other.

    Who said ‘this year’. There are decades of data.

    Any use of the Waldmeier method infers inflation along with the use of the Wolfer 0.6 factor as it is not allowing for the higher speck ratio.
    If the speck ratio is higher, the Waldmeier method would give a lower number [thus deflation]. Let’s take an example: on a day there is a big spot [counted as 3], two smaller spots [counted as 2 each] and 3 specks [counted as 1 each], this gives a total of 3+2+2+1+1+1 = 10 [speck ratio 3/6=0.5]. Now increase the speck ratio by demoting one of the medium spots to a speck, then the sum becomes 3+2+1+1+1+1 = 9, thus smaller than 10 for the larger speck ratio of 4/6 = 0.67. Unless you stipulate that in a Grand Minimum there are actually MORE spots and specks which does not seem reasonable.

    Telescope placement and number of observers plus 24 hour observing is also an inflation that is part of the modern system, this is very different from “deliberate mal-counting”
    The Zurich observers had a simple rule: you only look at the Sun ONCE a day. This is still followed by Locarno, so the Waldmeier jump is not caused by round-the-clock observing. And more observers does not translate into more spots, as spots come and GO. If observer A sees 5 spots in the morrow, it is just as likely that observer B would see 4 spots in the afternoon as he would see 6. More observers does not change the average.

    “I have asked them for their exact procedure, perhaps they’ll answer soon. They ‘try’, but do not quite succeed.”
    So you really have no clue how they deliberately try to align.

    They answered me today. They took over the old American Sunspot Number [which did careful alignment as I explained], but since the Navy no longer uses the old nomograms, there is no longer a reason to align with the Zurich scale, and the last many years they have not even tried to align, they just use k=1. [This was, in fact, news to me as they just stopped without telling anybody about it]. So now we don’t need to worry about how they align, because they don’t. They simply take the averages of the various observers. This seems to work well enough [and really: they don't care, because the NOAA numbers are not made for long-term studies, but for immediate consumption in practical applications].

    If the L&P effect is just extra speck ratio, then all is good. But unfortunately the title of the paper suggests otherwise.
    The L&P effect is that, what were specks disappear and what were medium spots become specks. Example: 2 big spots, 4 medium spots, 10 specks. Due to L&P we now have, say, 0 big spots, 2 medium spots, and 4 specks. I don’t think you even read [or understood] their paper [otherwise you would not claim this]. What the L&P is, is a shift of the distribution towards smaller field strength [and thus less visibility]. Here is the evolution of the number of spots since 2001: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston-Penn-Distribution.png The blue curves show the distributions for each year of 2001-2004, the green for 2005-2008, and the red for the latest years 2009-2011 [all of cycle 24]. You can clearly see the shift from blue, through green, to red.

    “The ‘real’ threshold was [as far a we know] twofold: the spot should look black in the 80mm [not grey] and it should not be so small that it could only be seen by the 80mm under very good seeing.”
    This further strengthens the LSC threshold.

    Nonsense, you said that the 37mm was the key. And the why throw data away? That Wolf did it was already in the 1870s realized to be a mistake and serious observer does that any more. Are you a serious observer?

    Looking at the daily records there are some years in the early 1800′s that have missing days but the data would seem more reliable than using a proxy.
    Not ‘some years’, most years. and you do not understand the nature of the beast. Even with perfect coverage, it would do us no good as we would not know how they related to Wolf’s series. What Wolf tried to use was comparison with something [aurorae] that could be hoped to have a constant relation with sunspots and then use that scaling to calibrate the sunspot series. Again, this has nothing to do with any threshold.

    Wolf would have dovetailed his reconstruction into his own count which is based on his threshold and proxy matching.
    He almost cut the sunspot count in half based on the auroral counts. His threshold had nothing to do with it. He was trying to compensate for variable seeing, by not using spots/specks that were only visible [with his acuity] under exceptional seeing. The 37mm automatically did that for him, but he had to up his count by 50% on account of missing too much. You see, this was his admission that he knew it was wrong to omit the smallest spots [he had no other choice because he traveled a lot]

  106. Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 14, 2011 at 9:06 pm
    And why throw data away? That Wolf did it was already in the 1870s realized to be a mistake and no serious observer does that any more. Are you a serious observer?

  107. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 14, 2011 at 5:36 pm
    It is far more likely that you have it the wrong way around and the SIDC look to be over counting during two periods prior to 2001.
    On commenting on http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-Undercounting.png Frederic Clette in email today agrees:
    “We find something similar using a bunch of core stations of the SIDC network (excluding Locarno).”

    Time for you to give up your illusion and accept the facts.

  108. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 14, 2011 at 9:06 pm

    You could substantiate that by marking on my figure of the two groups which spot is a ‘speck’. Then we could count.

    I will do exactly that next week, and hopefully I will also gain access to last years Catania drawings (the Catania website giving trouble).

    “The time of undercounting by SIDC is marked with red, open triangles. The mean of those points is 0.601. Partly due to my needling them, SIDC is beginning to improve on that as the green triangles show. Their long term ratio is 0.659.”
    Note that I said ‘Their long term ratio is 0.659′, referring to the green triangles [and they do just have that ratio]. Sad that you can get such things wrong. Most be deliberate.

    You need to be clearer in your statements. It can be read two ways.

    The NOAA figures should not be multiplied by 0.6 as NOAA does not use the standard Wolfer factor, but by 0.64 [empirically found] for all the data as I said. You have not understood the ‘details’ in spite of my effort. Perhaps you didn’t even try. If you think it is wrong, point out where.

    It is becoming clear that you have biased the figures to suit your cause. The NOAA figures should be factored by the standard Wolfer 0.6, this is how its been done since the late 1800′s, to do otherwise is plain wrong. Of course you will see a difference from 2001 if the overall long term difference is applied. I have also compared NOAA with the 0.64 factor and it still doesn’t look like your graph. You have also elected to line up the records on the upslope of SC23 which produces a spurious outcome. By not applying any bias it is clear that the SIDC are not undercounting from 2001 on. Now that we learn NOAA are doing their own thing it is obvious that SIDC is counting correctly since 2001 but perhaps their count could be in question before that.

    We can compare the F10.7 flux values against both records, F10.7 is only a guide but when doing so the NOAA values follow more closely (especially in the SC23 upslope area). This suggests to me that perhaps NOAA was more accurate during this period, which is what you see also when comparing the amateur records. I would need to see the amateur records to comment further.

    So I still see no evidence that SIDC are undercounting, if anything I am more confident they are at least being consistent with their inflated method since 2001. The question still remains how does NOAA come up with a very similar value without using the Waldmeier system?

  109. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 14, 2011 at 9:55 pm

    Time for you to give up your illusion and accept the facts.

    I might send them my research and a copy of this text and see what happens.

  110. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 15, 2011 at 12:07 am
    I might send them my research and a copy of this text and see what happens.
    Good idea. To put it in proper perspective include my comments from here.

  111. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 15, 2011 at 12:03 am
    You need to be clearer in your statements. It can be read two ways.
    Only if you want to misundersdtand. As it stands it is very clear: the green triangles have a factor of 0.66.

    The NOAA figures should be factored by the standard Wolfer 0.6, this is how its been done since the late 1800′s, to do otherwise is plain wrong.
    The 0.6 applies to the Zurich observers [including Locarno]. Every other observer including the ones that make up the NOAA network [USAF - SEON] will have a different k-factor. On http://www.vds-sonne.de/index.php?page=gem/res/results.html you can find a lot of information about this (including all the ‘amateur’ records). Including the k-factors for every observer in the SONNE network: e.g. for 2009 4Q:
    Brettel,G. Refr. 90/1000 0.806
    Bullon,J.M. Refl. 200/2000 0.976
    Bullon,J.M. Refr. 70/ 350 1.018
    Bullon,J.M. Refr. 120/1000 0.545
    Gieseke,R. Fegl. 50/ 300 1.135
    Hofmann,W. Refr. 80/ 400 2.945
    Joppich,H. Refr. 60/ 900 0.773
    Karlsen,N. Refr. 100/1000 0.869
    Morales,G. Refl. 90/2000 0.822
    Schott,G.-L. Refr. 80/ 910 1.371
    Smit,F. Refr. 80/1200 0.903
    Willi,X. Refl. 200/1320 1.166
    As you can see applying the 0.6 for everyone is juts ‘plain wrong’.

    Of course you will see a difference from 2001 if the overall long term difference is applied. I have also compared NOAA with the 0.64 factor and it still doesn’t look like your graph.
    Then do it right. Here is a spreadsheet with the data: http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-SWPC%20comparisons.xls it also produces the graph.

    You have also elected to line up the records on the upslope of SC23 which produces a spurious outcome.
    For all observers except SIDC the records line up throughout. SIDC agrees with all the others up to 2001, so it makes sense to align SIDC [only] on the upslope of SC23 [and it has really nothing to do with upslopes or solar cycles. Correct would have been to say 1996-2000, as this is not solar related but has to do with a defect in the SIDC processing]

    it is obvious that SIDC is counting correctly since 2001 but perhaps their count could be in question before that.
    SIDC agrees with everybody before 2001, so counted correctly then. SIDC disagrees with everybody [NOAA and the amateurs] after 2001, so SIDC is wrong after 2001.

    We can compare the F10.7 flux values against both records
    If you so [as I have told you many times] F10.7 agrees well with the Zurich and SIDC sunspot number up to about 1990. From there on the sunspot numbers are too progressively too low. This is independent confirmation of the L&P effect, which will hit every observer equally.

    The question still remains how does NOAA come up with a very similar value without using the Waldmeier system?
    They don’t. NOAA is higher. Since 1996 NOAA’s average was 79.90 and SIDC’s was 51.95 or 53.8% higher [k=0.65, if you calculate the average of k for each month you get 0.64], so they do not come up with a very similar value and it is not a ‘bias’ [it is just the value established from the data]. So there is no question anymore after we have learned that they do not even try to align themselves.

  112. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 15, 2011 at 12:03 am
    it is obvious that SIDC is counting correctly since 2001 but perhaps their count could be in question before that.
    Leif: SIDC agrees with everybody before 2001, so counted correctly then. SIDC disagrees with everybody [NOAA and the amateurs] after 2001, so SIDC is wrong after 2001.

    The ‘obvious’ bit is unfounded, but you can, of course, stipulate that SIDC is ‘correct’ since 2001 and then say that all the time before that SIDC was wrong. SIDC took pains to be consistent with Zurich because homogeneity is important. Their main vehicle for this was Locarno [Sergio, to be precise], so you must then also assume that Sergio changed something when SIDC took over. All of these assumptions are clearly special pleading. The simpler position [that SIDC also takes, c.f. Frederic] is that something went wrong at SIDC around 2000.

    Anyway, a resource of sunspot drawings [including the ones on with NOAA is partly based] is here:
    ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SOLAR_IMAGES/Sunspot_Drawings/

  113. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 15, 2011 at 5:58 am

    Then do it right. Here is a spreadsheet with the data: http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-SWPC%20comparisons.xls it also produces the graph.

    Your spreadsheet is exactly the same as mine, but I needed to add the NOAA x 0.64 values. When graphed it produces the same result which is very different to your graph shown during the SIDC workshop.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 15, 2011 at 3:45 am

    Geoff Sharp says:
    April 15, 2011 at 12:07 am
    I might send them my research and a copy of this text and see what happens.
    —————————
    Good idea. To put it in proper perspective include my comments from here.

    I have done just that. The SIDC while noticing some divergence from SC22/23 maxima are also not convinced by your research. They are doing an extensive investigation which will take time, but they have also welcomed my research and remain in touch.

  114. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 18, 2011 at 9:22 pm
    “Then do it right. Here is a spreadsheet with the data”
    Your spreadsheet is exactly the same as mine, but I needed to add the NOAA x 0.64 values. When graphed it produces the same result which is very different to your graph shown during the SIDC workshop.

    No, you neglected to plot the ratio.
    By multiplying NOAA by the long-term k-factor you distribute the discrepancy over the whole plot, making it difficult to see. Multiply NOAA by 0.672 for 1996-2001 and by 0.611 thereafter and show us. Then you can see the difference.

    I have done just that. The SIDC while noticing some divergence from SC22/23 maxima are also not convinced by your research.
    You are not being quite honest here. They agree that they undercount [otherwise they wouldn't be doing extensive investigation...]. What they are not convinced about is when the problem started. They think the undercounting started earlier, perhaps in 1998 or 1999. This is possible, hard to tell, as there is not a very sharp jump from one day to the next. Any time between 1998 and 2002 would be fine with me.

  115. Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 18, 2011 at 10:20 pm
    By multiplying NOAA by the long-term k-factor you distribute the discrepancy over the whole plot, making it difficult to see. Multiply NOAA by 0.672 for 1996-2001 and by 0.611 thereafter and show us. Then you can see the difference.
    I said that clumsily. What I meant was that if SIDC were not undercounting, then the k-factor should be the same after 2001 as before. since before it was 0.672, you should multiply ALL the NOAA values 1996-today by the assumed constant 0.672 and compare to SIDC. Or conversely, if you think SIDC after 2001 is correct then ALL the NOAA values before 2001 should be multiplied by 0.611. This is, of course, a separate plot. either you align before 2001 or you align after 2001. What SIDC is not so sure about is whether 2001 is the best cut-over time, they would like to think that their problem started a bit earlier. I can live with a progressive change from 1998 to 2001. The main point is that they know they have a problem. It does not take a long time to recognize that. It may take a long time to figure out why.

  116. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 18, 2011 at 10:20 pm

    No, you neglected to plot the ratio.
    By multiplying NOAA by the long-term k-factor you distribute the discrepancy over the whole plot, making it difficult to see. Multiply NOAA by 0.672 for 1996-2001 and by 0.611 thereafter and show us. Then you can see the difference.

    All that does is align the 2 records. There is no doubt there is a shift at 2001, but what I think you are not seeing, is that the SIDC are possibly over counting before 2001. The F10.7 records suggest the same, the Ri values are much higher than the flux values compared with NOAA pre 2001. There is a very large divergence between Ri and NOAA in 1998, December being a good example. Looking at the drawings there is evidence of two changes:

    (1)The Waldmeier method is further skewing the records because of a higher incidence of larger spots within groups.

    (2) Spots are getting a higher weighting than observed post 2001.

    Here are some examples in Dec 1998.

    http://www.specola.ch/drawings/1988/loc-d19881219.JPG
    http://www.specola.ch/drawings/1988/loc-d19881214.JPG
    http://www.specola.ch/drawings/1988/loc-d19881207.JPG

    There are examples of single spots with a score of 4 & 6 that might interest you, along with other groups that might not score as high today…see what you think?

    They think the undercounting started earlier, perhaps in 1998 or 1999. This is possible, hard to tell, as there is not a very sharp jump from one day to the next. Any time between 1998 and 2002 would be fine with me.

    You are searching for an outcome rather than investigating the facts. Looking at the NOAA and F10.7 records there is no way the SIDC can be considered to be undercounting during 1998. This may only be evident if comparing with some of their other stations.

  117. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 19, 2011 at 3:40 am
    All that does is align the 2 records.
    By doing that, you see the difference, otherwise you are just hiding the decline.

    There is no doubt there is a shift at 2001
    Good, then we can get that out of the way/

    but what I think you are not seeing, is that the SIDC are possibly over counting before 2001. The F10.7 records suggest the same
    Simply plotting SSN as a function of F10.7 [as I have shown you so many times] shows that SIDC is undercounting after 2001. Here is such a plot:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Yearly-SSN-vs-F107.png
    To help you understand the plot: pick an F10.7 value on the X-axis. Follow a vertical line upwards. You will then see that the line first encounter the red symbols [SSN after 2001] and then later blue symbols [before 2001]. This means that for a given value of F10.7, the SSN since 2001 is lower [i.e. undercounted] than before. Perhaps you now would claim that the Canadians had a calibration problem around 2001 and that they were measuring too high values before that. Comparison with the Japanese flux values shows that this is not the case.
    Now, most of the difference between the blue and red data points is not really due to sunspot counting problems, but the L&P [but since you think L&P is bad science, nonsense, and non-existent, you would have to accept that the SSN compared to F10.7 is indeed too low before 2001].
    To show that the SIDC undercounting is a genuine defect in their series [and not just the L&P effect], we can directly compare with NOAA: http://www.leif.org/research/Monthly-SIDC-vs-NOAA.png
    And find the same thing: the red data points are below the blue. SIDC is undercounting. Comparing with ‘the rest of the world’ shows the same thing.

    There is a very large divergence between Ri and NOAA in 1998
    since 1998 is just near the borderline when undercounting began, it is a poor example.

    (1)The Waldmeier method is further skewing the records because of a higher incidence of larger spots within groups.
    (2) Spots are getting a higher weighting than observed post 2001.

    The Waldmeier method has been in effect for decades and did not change near 2001

    There are examples of single spots with a score of 4 & 6 that might interest you, along with other groups that might not score as high today…see what you think?
    Since Cortesi is doing the counting as he has for 54 years, I see no difference [unless you are claiming he is going blind]

    This may only be evident if comparing with some of their other stations.
    comparing with the ‘rest of the world’ [as I have shown you repeatedly] shows the same as comparing with NOAA and F10.7: SIDC is undercounting, and all stations [incl. SIDC] are further undercounting due to L&P.

  118. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 19, 2011 at 3:40 am
    There is a very large divergence between Ri and NOAA in 1998
    If there is, the fault is with NOAA, as you can see here:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Yearly-SSN-vs-F107.png
    The light blue diamond at F10.7 = 118 for 1998 shows that Ri falls just on the line of the dark blue diamonds, hence 1998 has just the same relationship between F10.7 and Ri as the other years before 2001. NOAA is less secure than Ri as it is based on only 4-6 stations manned by Air Force NCOs with minimal training.

  119. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 19, 2011 at 8:45 am

    There is no doubt there is a shift at 2001
    ———————-
    Good, then we can get that out of the way/

    There was also a shift in 1990, 1980, 1965 and 1957. This is nothing new and could easily be a product of the Waldmeier system with changing percentages of larger spots in groups. If NOAA went back to 1956 we would probably see the same results ie NOAA and SIDC would agree when the incidence of larger spots per group fell.

    http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sidc_f107.png

    Prior cycles also show SIDC values higher on the cycle up ramp and a closer match on the downramp. SC20 is an exception. My graph uses daily values with a 30 day moving average.

    Simply plotting SSN as a function of F10.7 [as I have shown you so many times] shows that SIDC is undercounting after 2001. Here is such a plot:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Yearly-SSN-vs-F107.png

    Resorting to yearly figures is a bit desperate. As I have shown you so many times (above) there is minimal divergence between the long term Canadian flux figures and SSN. There is no evidence to suggest any secular movements in the flux/SSN ratio.

    You have decided to group stations according to one curve on the long time record (SC23 upramp), this is biased reporting looking for a result.

    NOAA is less secure than Ri as it is based on only 4-6 stations manned by Air Force NCOs with minimal training.

    Just recently you said “NOAA was king”.

  120. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 19, 2011 at 8:04 pm
    “There is no doubt there is a shift at 2001″
    Good, then we can get that out of the way

    There was also a shift in 1990, 1980, 1965 and 1957.
    These were minor [and 1990 was related to move from Ottawa to Penticton, 1980 from Zurich to Brussels]. The big shift was around 2001:
    http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-F107-fit-1.png

    My graph uses daily values with a 30 day moving average.
    Your graphs mislead you. Plot the values against each other as I just did in the above link, and you’ll see why.

    Resorting to yearly figures is a bit desperate.
    The yearly figures are cleaner as there are fewer points. I have shown the monthly ones several times and you couldn’t see it. So, here you have it again:
    http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-F107-fit-2.png
    I start in 1952 becasue there were many missing days before that and because I want to make sure by comparing with the Japanese [starting in late 1951] that the Canadian data is good.

    Just recently you said “NOAA was king”.
    Not that I can remember. I have said that NOAA agrees better with the rest of the world than SIDC, which it does.

    But I realize that I take steps that are too large for you, so we’ll continue with some baby steps instead. The first thing you do is to use Excel to make a scatter plot: make three columns one of 10.7 and one of SSN before 2001 and the last of SSN after 2001, then select ‘scatter plot’ as the graph mode. Show the result.

  121. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 19, 2011 at 10:04 pm

    Just recently you said “NOAA was king”.
    ————————————————–
    Not that I can remember. I have said that NOAA agrees better with the rest of the world than SIDC, which it does.

    Once again you have selective memory.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/22/new-wuwt-solar-images-and-data-page/#comment-581264

    Anthony Watts says:
    January 23, 2011 at 10:48 am
    Dudes, while you are arguing… nothing gets done.
    —————-
    “since my plots is already on the Wolf scale [NOAA's], I don’t need to change anything. I keep the SIDC data as ‘fly dirt’ only to see how it behaves. NOAA is king.”

    But I realize that I take steps that are too large for you, so we’ll continue with some baby steps instead. The first thing you do is to use Excel to make a scatter plot: make three columns one of 10.7 and one of SSN before 2001 and the last of SSN after 2001, then select ‘scatter plot’ as the graph mode. Show the result.

    This is a normal response for you once cornered. The need to resort to ad hominem and then the x-y scatter plot routine. If you can, why don’t you show us an x-y scatter plot comparing Ri with Canadian F10.7 adjusted, for the SC22/23 upramps. You would need to match Ri with flux since 1947 to find the best alignment. This might show us some useful information?

    You commented on Sergio’s eyesight, it has been tested frequently by other observers while he is on holidays. “This indicates that there was no significant drift of Cortesi versus all others over the last 15 years. No significant trend in the local seeing conditions either (they systematically keep track of this as well).”

    Ri has also been tested again Locarno:
    “Ri scales perfectly with the pilot station of the network: Locarno. Therefore, if there is a long-term trend, it must thus be at Locarno.”

    While there are inconsistencies at times that I have pointed out (there are others where a single alpha spot scores 30) the general weighting of spots seems consistent over SC23. A thorough analysis of sunspot weighting and splitting looking at all drawings would need to be performed to be sure. So what is different about Locarno? The Waldmeier method is only used at this station (since 1981) with its capacity to drift if the type of spots change. Sure this method was used from 1945 to 1981 at Zurich but do we know the total method used in constructing Ri during this period without Waldmeier’s drawings?

    Your method of aligning sunspot counts before 2001 shows one outcome. It is just as reasonable to align the sunspot counts after 2001 which will show another outcome that is just as plausible. At the same time you could overlay the Canadian F10.7 values for reference which I am sure would be interesting. This kind of exercise will show that Ri drifted high during the Sc23 upramp and then followed the pack after 2001.

  122. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 20, 2011 at 4:49 pm
    Once again you have selective memory.
    “since my plots is already on the Wolf scale [NOAA's], I don’t need to change anything. I keep the SIDC data as ‘fly dirt’ only to see how it behaves. NOAA is king.”

    And you take things out of context. What was meant was that that a count without the goofy 0.6 factor is king. On my plot, that is the NOAA curve. This does not mean that NOAA is ‘the best’, just that original Wolf scale with k=1 is to be preferred.

    This is a normal response for you once cornered. The need to resort to ad hominem and then the x-y scatter plot routine. If you can, why don’t you show us an x-y scatter plot comparing Ri with Canadian F10.7 adjusted, for the SC22/23 upramps. You would need to match Ri with flux since 1947 to find the best alignment. This might show us some useful information?
    I can do that [have already done so, in fact], but my experience with you is that unless you do it yourself you’ll not see the light, so try it and learn.

    You commented on Sergio’s eyesight, it has been tested frequently by other observers while he is on holidays. “This indicates that there was no significant drift of Cortesi versus all others over the last 15 years. No significant trend in the local seeing conditions either (they systematically keep track of this as well).”
    I maintain that Sergio’s eyesight is good [in spite of some recent glaucoma]. I was simply forestalling that you would use failing eyesight as an excuse or straw man.

    >i>Ri has also been tested again Locarno:
    “Ri scales perfectly with the pilot station of the network: Locarno. Therefore, if there is a long-term trend, it must thus be at Locarno.”
    Not what they said lately [they are making progress]: “We find something similar [the SIDC under counting] using a bunch of core stations of the SIDC network (excluding Locarno).”

    While there are inconsistencies at times that I have pointed out (there are others where a single alpha spot scores 30) the general weighting of spots seems consistent over SC23.
    As I showed these are tiny and do not matter.

    A thorough analysis of sunspot weighting and splitting looking at all drawings would need to be performed to be sure.
    Only Locarno does weighting and is only one of ~60 stations in the network. One simple way to deal with this is to drop Locarno all together as the station only contributes 1/60 of the data.

    So what is different about Locarno? The Waldmeier method is only used at this station (since 1981) with its capacity to drift if the type of spots change.
    Locarno has used the Waldmeier method since Sergio started in 1957.

    Sure this method was used from 1945 to 1981 at Zurich but do we know the total method used in constructing Ri during this period without Waldmeier’s drawings?
    As I have said a gazillion times, the sunspot number is determined from direct visual observations through the eyepiece and not from drawings. And we do know the complete method, because Waldmeier in every yearly report says [and stresses] that there has not been [and must not be] any change in method.

    Your method of aligning sunspot counts before 2001 shows one outcome. It is just as reasonable to align the sunspot counts after 2001 which will show another outcome that is just as plausible.
    In principle, you could maintain that SIDC after 2001 is correct and they and all other observers back to and including Wolf, Schwabe, and Staudacher are wrong. Comparison with F10.7 and the diurnal variation of the magnetic needle, however, show that is not the case.

    At the same time you could overlay the Canadian F10.7 values for reference which I am sure would be interesting. This kind of exercise will show that Ri drifted high during the Sc23 upramp and then followed the pack after 2001.
    I have shown you the comparison with F10.7 [even the Canadian version with its jump when they moved to Penticton] many times. This is conclusive. You cannot just ‘overlay’ F10.7 without scaling it correctly to Ri, which is what you need to learn how to do.

  123. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 20, 2011 at 4:49 pm
    and then the x-y scatter plot routine.
    The x-y scatter plot is the standard way scientists use to calibrate one instrument against another. Read here how Waldmeier suggested using x-y plot of Rz and F10.7 for precisely that purpose: http://www.leif.org/EOS/W-CCCIV.pdf Study it carefully. To check that you have even looked at it, tell us what the last word on page 6 is.
    Then in the next comment, we’ll tackle how to do this for cycle 23 [which you liked so much].

  124. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 20, 2011 at 5:36 pm

    And you take things out of context.

    Predictable response.

    This is a normal response for you once cornered. The need to resort to ad hominem and then the x-y scatter plot routine. If you can, why don’t you show us an x-y scatter plot comparing Ri with Canadian F10.7 adjusted, for the SC22/23 upramps. You would need to match Ri with flux since 1947 to find the best alignment. This might show us some useful information?
    ——————————————————-
    I can do that [have already done so, in fact], but my experience with you is that unless you do it yourself you’ll not see the light, so try it and learn.

    What it shows us is that the downramp for SC23 is has a better fit than the upramp?

    http://www.landscheidt.info/images/ri_f10_xy.png

    Ri has also been tested again Locarno:
    “Ri scales perfectly with the pilot station of the network: Locarno. Therefore, if there is a long-term trend, it must thus be at Locarno.”
    —————————–
    Not what they said lately [they are making progress]: “We find something similar [the SIDC under counting] using a bunch of core stations of the SIDC network (excluding Locarno).”

    My statement was taken from a private communication with the SIDC in the last few days.

    So what is different about Locarno? The Waldmeier method is only used at this station (since 1981) with its capacity to drift if the type of spots change.
    ———————-
    Locarno has used the Waldmeier method since Sergio started in 1957.

    But the Locarno pre 1981 values were not the primary station used to construct Ri. It’s a shame you have to nitpick in this fashion. I am trying to to determine possible drift reasons for Locarno.

    As I have said a gazillion times, the sunspot number is determined from direct visual observations through the eyepiece and not from drawings. And we do know the complete method, because Waldmeier in every yearly report says [and stresses] that there has not been [and must not be] any change in method.

    Yep, we are saying the same thing. No drawings, so there is no way to establish the exact use and proportion of Waldmeiers weighting method in practice…only a description. This would be a lot quicker if we could bypass the unnecessary nitpicking.

    Perhaps you could now preform your exercise in reverse. Group the sunspot counts after 2001?

  125. Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 20, 2011 at 9:45 pm
    Read here how Waldmeier suggested using x-y plot of Rz and F10.7 for precisely that purpose: http://www.leif.org/EOS/W-CCCIV.pdf Study it carefully. To check that you have even looked at it, tell us what the last word on page 6 is.
    You failed the test…

  126. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 20, 2011 at 11:37 pm
    “And you take things out of context.”
    Predictable response.

    Since you knew that you took it out of context, of course you could predict the response.

    What it shows us is that the downramp for SC23 is has a better fit than the upramp? http://www.landscheidt.info/images/ri_f10_xy.png
    If you had gone to the trouble of reading the Waldmeier paper [at least the abstract and the Figures] you would have seen that Waldmeier shows that there is no difference between the up and down ramps [His Figures 1a (down) and 1c (up), and his conclusion: "die F-R-Relation [...] nicht von the Phase des elfjaehrigen Zyklus abhaengt” = the Flux-Sunspot relationship does not depend on the phase of the 11-yr cycle].
    Extending his analysis with modern data yields: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-F107-fit-3.png where you can see that for all cycles [except the down-ramp for 23] the up/down ramps [blue/pink symbols and regression lines] behave the same way.
    For cycle 23, the green dots show that the population for the down ramp [or rather just since ~2001, since it has nothing to do with up/down ramps] fall below the data before 2001. You have also seen this in your plot [but you should swap the axes], so you confirm this [good]. Now, the lower values since 2001 is due to a combination of
    1) SIDC undercounting
    2) L&P effect
    Since you do not believe in L&P you must attribute all the difference to SIDC undercounting.

    Not what they said lately [they are making progress]: “We find something similar [the SIDC under counting] using a bunch of core stations of the SIDC network (excluding Locarno).”
    My statement was taken from a private communication with the SIDC in the last few days.

    So was mine, you, however have in the past not been quite honest about those ‘private communications’, and that seems to be the case here, again.

    I am trying to to determine possible drift reasons for Locarno.
    As Frederic states that they see the drift even excluding Locarno, and my own research using ‘the rest of the world’ shows the same, Locarno is just a straw man of yours [since you know Locarno doesn't matter - having been told so many times].

    No drawings, so there is no way to establish the exact use and proportion of Waldmeiers weighting method in practice…only a description.
    One must take the description of serious scientists at face value [all the way back to Wolf]. But there are many ways of checking the final result: F10.7, magnetic needle, ionospheric reflection, hundreds of other sunspot observers.

  127. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 20, 2011 at 11:37 pm
    http://www.landscheidt.info/images/ri_f10_xy.png
    Now that you have seen the light that the x-y plot is a powerful technique [used by everybody in the whole wide world to compare instruments and check calibrations], we can take the next step. Find from the x-y plot between Canadian F10.7 flux 1947-1991 what the scaling formula between F10.7 and SSN is, i.e. how to calculate SSN from F10.7. We use 1991 as the cutoff, because the Canadians moved the observatory from Ottawa to Penticton in 1991. Then plot the calculated SSN [blue] and the observed SSN [pink] since 1947: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-Obs-Scaled-Canadian-F107.png
    You can then see, by eye, how well F10.7 predicts the SSN, until some time between 1999 and 2001, after which the SSN is observed to be lower than what we would expect from the F10.7 flux. The deficit is due to 1) SIDC undercounting by 12% and more importantly 2) the L&P effect removing the small specks, shifting the distribution towards lower field strengths and thus lower spot visibility http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston-Penn-Distribution.png

    Such is the story. Comparisons with NOAA and ‘the rest of the World’ shows that the 12% is a SIDC undercount, as we have seen now several times. There really is anything mysterious here. SIDC has to figure out how their undercount comes about; it is not due to issues about Locarno as they see the same undercounting excluding Locarno from the calculation of Ri. It is not due to Waldmeier weighting as that has been done since at least 1945.

  128. Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 21, 2011 at 11:16 am
    There really isn’t anything mysterious here.

  129. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 21, 2011 at 8:46 am

    And you take things out of context. What was meant was that that a count without the goofy 0.6 factor is king. On my plot, that is the NOAA curve.

    A ridiculous statement. The 0.6 factor is crucial when attempting to align with the sunspot record. Just do the right thing and use the official record that you now state is better.

    You have also seen this in your plot [but you should swap the axes], so you confirm this [good].

    I followed the Waldmeier plot (see I did read it). Can you explain why yours is in reverse?

    So was mine, you, however have in the past not been quite honest about those ‘private communications’, and that seems to be the case here, again.

    My statement was a direct quote, hence the rabbit ears.

    Now that you have seen the light that the x-y plot is a powerful technique.

    This powerful tool also hides anomalies and does not tell the complete picture. You and Tapping are making the same mistake. My overlay clearly shows an anomaly between F10.7 and sunspot numbers during 2001-2002, which both NOAA and the SIDC show. This is direct evidence of a decoupling of flux and sunspot number that needs to be investigated but also should be removed when doing comparisons.

    Redo your upramp/downramp comparison but starting SC23 downramp at 2003 and you will see the difference. Example HERE.

    You are jumping to conclusions too fast, and allowing an anomaly to skew your figures, this becomes evident when viewing the overlay. Also we should only look at records after 1981 when comparing up and down ramps to flush out the SIDC problem. The Waldmeier method seems to fit F10.7 up until 1981, after that there appears to be some overcounting. Also you have all the Locarno drawings, you should be able to show where this undercounting occurs.

    So for the sake of the exercise (as there is now doubt in your method), redo your plot in reverse (group sunspot counts after SC23 max) and overlay the Canadian F10.7 values.

    Since you do not believe in L&P you must attribute all the difference to SIDC undercounting.

    BTW, what happened to L&P during the largest month of SC24 (March 2011), I believe they went missing? For whatever reason this raises more doubts.

  130. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 21, 2011 at 8:32 pm
    The 0.6 factor is crucial when attempting to align with the sunspot record. Just do the right thing and use the official record that you now state is better.
    Wolf established what the sunspot record should be. We should all go back to his scale [with k=1] where NOAA already is. We can align the official record [which I presume you mean to be SIDC] with Wolf by dividing by 0.6.

    I followed the Waldmeier plot (see I did read it). Can you explain why yours is in reverse?
    But you did not tell us what the word was, so failed the test, and now try to cover up. Mine is in reverse because I wish to see how the sunspot number is calibrated with respect to F10.7 [as F10.7 is the variable whose calibration is not in doubt]. Which is essentially just turning the plot sideways and does not change the correlation.

    My statement was a direct quote, hence the rabbit ears.
    I don’t think it is the whole truth as we didn’t see the statement. You may be taking something out of context again and construe SIDC’s statement that their undercounting started a bit earlier than my estimate of 2001 [perhaps in 1999] as ‘they do not agree with your research’. This does not mean that they disagree that they undercount, just as to when it started [I can live with 1999].

    This powerful tool also hides anomalies and does not tell the complete picture. You and Tapping are making the same mistake. My overlay clearly shows an anomaly between F10.7 and sunspot numbers during 2001-2002, which both NOAA and the SIDC show. This is direct evidence of a decoupling of flux and sunspot number that needs to be investigated but also should be removed when doing comparisons.
    No anomalies are hidden. They show up as a cloud of points off the usual band of points, and the 2002 anomaly was not included anyway in the determination of the formula for calculating SSN from F10.7.

    Redo your upramp/downramp comparison but starting SC23 downramp at 2003 and you will see the difference. Example HERE.
    You should not plot daily values as the many points obscure the relationship which anyway does not hold on scales as short as a day. Monthly values is preferred. Waldmeier even agrees that it only makes sense to compare averages over a month or more. Starting in 2003 shouldn’t make any difference and doesn’t: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-F107-fit-3b.png

    The Waldmeier method seems to fit F10.7 up until 1981, after that there appears to be some overcounting. Also you have all the Locarno drawings, you should be able to show where this undercounting occurs.
    Overcounting/undercounting? After 1981 SIDC undercounts slightly as you can see directly on the overlay: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-Obs-Scaled-Canadian-F107.png This undercounting becomes worse around 2000 and continues to the present day. The undercounting has nothing to do with Locarno as SIDC reports they find the same undercounting even when Locarno is excluded. [How many times should this be said?]

    So for the sake of the exercise (as there is now doubt in your method), redo your plot in reverse (group sunspot counts after SC23 max) and overlay the Canadian F10.7 values.
    You don’t make much sense here, but I assume you would say that SIDC after SC23 max is correct and that all data before that are too high. Perhaps express more clearly what you think would convince you. There is no ‘doubt in the method’, it is standard calibration procedure. Aligning on the latter part of the record instead of the first is just a parallel shift of the curves, but that does not change the facts: it makes no difference if you say that ‘SSN is too low compared to F10.7′ or ‘F10.7 is too high compared to SSN’.

    BTW, what happened to L&P during the largest month of SC24 (March 2011), I believe they went missing? For whatever reason this raises more doubts.
    Again you are spreading your usual, unfounded FUD. Livingston measured 157 spots between March 26-April 1, when the average [Ri] sunspot number was 71. It is time you pay attention to reality rather than to your beliefs. Now, there were no measurements in February because of maintenance [cleaning] of the telescope, this happens too.

  131. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 21, 2011 at 8:32 pm
    My overlay clearly shows an anomaly between F10.7 and sunspot numbers during 2001-2002, which both NOAA and the SIDC show. This is direct evidence of a decoupling of flux and sunspot number that needs to be investigated but also should be removed when doing comparisons.
    All the overlays [mine included] show this and the decoupling is direct evidence of the L&P effect. Remember that the SIDC undercounting is only a small part of the discrepancy [see slides 23-26 of http://www.leif.org/research/Eddy-Symp-Poster-1.pdf ]. The greater part is the L&P effect which, of course, all observers, NOAA and SIDC too, will show. So, such a decoupling [still going on] is the most exciting news in solar physics for many decades, namely that the sunspot number no longer is a faithful representation of solar activity.
    The SIDC undercounting is established by slide 23 of the above link, that does not involve F10.7, so has nothing to do with the decoupling.

  132. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 21, 2011 at 8:32 pm
    My overlay clearly shows an anomaly between F10.7 and sunspot numbers during 2001-2002, which both NOAA and the SIDC show. This is direct evidence of a decoupling of flux and sunspot number that needs to be investigated
    Congratulations, you have just discovered the L&P effect in sunspot numbers. Your ‘anomaly’ falls right on the line for the L&P decrease: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-F107-fit-4.png
    There is, of course, large scatter near minima where the sunspot numbers are small and hence their ratio uncertain. 2001-2002, however, is close to maximum where the ratio is well-determined. So, no anomaly, just what expected from L&P.

  133. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 21, 2011 at 9:58 pm

    Again you are spreading your usual, unfounded FUD. Livingston measured 157 spots between March 26-April 1, when the average [Ri] sunspot number was 71. It is time you pay attention to reality rather than to your beliefs. Now, there were no measurements in February because of maintenance [cleaning] of the telescope, this happens too.

    So it is worse than we thought. The 2 largest months so far of SC24 and only 6 days covered. The Layman’s darkness record continues to be at odds with L&P.

  134. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 21, 2011 at 9:58 pm

    This has gone on for some time and still myself and the SIDC are not convinced by your proposal. I believe your methods and results would not stand up to proper peer review.

    In summary:

    Your methods of comparing the SIDC count is erroneous. Sunspot counts should not be grouped together at your discretion that favours an outcome.

    You have not provided any proof of SIDC undercounting via the Locarno drawings. (there is ample evidence of overcounting at Locarno as a bi product of the Waldmeier system where the SIDC is higher than NOAA)

    The F10.7 values do not support your case. When dissected the F10.7 values support overcounting during certain periods.

  135. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 26, 2011 at 11:15 pm
    So it is worse than we thought. The 2 largest months so far of SC24 and only 6 days covered. The Layman’s darkness record continues to be at odds with L&P.
    Livingston observes on average one week per month, giving an unbiased record of L&P. The Layman’s measures are uncalibrated junk, designed to support an agenda.

    Geoff Sharp says:
    April 26, 2011 at 11:27 pm
    This has gone on for some time and still myself and the SIDC are not convinced by your proposal. I believe your methods and results would not stand up to proper peer review.
    The SIDC does not like the idea of discarding the 0.6 factor, but does not dispute that they undercount and are actively engaged in trying to figure out why. All parties involved [SIDC, NOAA, us, other researchers] have agreed to a workshop in September to sort out the mess. This is peer-review of the highest carat which might actually produce progress rather than just controversy.

    Your methods of comparing the SIDC count is erroneous. Sunspot counts should not be grouped together at your discretion that favours an outcome.
    Those are standard methods for calibrating instruments and measurements. The outcome is determined by the data.

    You have not provided any proof of SIDC undercounting via the Locarno drawings. (there is ample evidence of overcounting at Locarno as a bi product of the Waldmeier system where the SIDC is higher than NOAA)
    The Waldmeier system has been unchanged since the 1940s. SIDC recognizes that they undercount even when Locarno is excluded, so Locarno is but a convenient, red herring.

    The F10.7 values do not support your case. When dissected the F10.7 values support overcounting during certain periods.
    Even if you could find isolated instances [which is hard, http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20and%20SSN%202.png ], the overall result is plain. F10.7 is not the only measure that shows the undercount since ~2000. The sunspot areas support the undercounting: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-vs-Sunspot-Area.png and the Calcium K-line measurements at NSO also show the same thing: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-vs-CaK3.png not to speak about comparing with NOAA and the rest of the World: http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-Undercounting.png . Now, the SIDC undercount [12%] is but a small part of the discrepancy caused by the much larger L&P effect, so that has to be kept in mind. Even if SIDC revises their count [as is expected], the L&P result still stands. One can hope that L&P will disappear [which it might as it eventually must], but so far there is no sign of that: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston-Penn-Distribution.png

  136. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 26, 2011 at 11:27 pm
    the SIDC are not convinced by your proposal
    You are, again, not quite honest. Here is what Frederic says [but remember he doesn't like to be involved in public debate]:
    “We find something similar using a bunch of core stations of the SIDC network (excluding Locarno). The discrepancy seems to start earlier, maybe in 1998.”
    Note that he agrees there is a discrepancy.

    “Following the visit of Locarno observers to Brussels, evidence was scarce for any possible cause of a post-2000 bias. We assembled an action list including investigations to be conducted on both sides in the coming months. For us, it implies modifying the base sunspot index software to carry out test calculations with variable data input choices (pilot station, etc.). So, there is exciting matter for the workshop planned in September. We will try to produce new elements on time for that meeting.”

    So, there are two [unrelated] issues:
    1) a small [12%] undercount by SIDC
    2) a much larger sunspot deficit caused by the L&P effect, which is seen when comparing with many solar indices [F10.7, Sunspot area, foF2 critical frequency, Ca K-line emission, magnetic fields]

    Having a firm grip on observational reality is the first step to recognizing and perhaps understanding this remarkable phenomenon. Sticking your head in the sand is not conducive to this.

Comments are closed.