August 21st sketch from Catainia Observatory, Italy. Click for a larger image
I had thought I was getting “blown off” by SIDC (Solar Influences Data Center) since I had not heard a response to two emails I sent…that is until today, over a week later. At least it appears they’ll correct the southern hemisphere error. Perhaps Leif can explain to us about the other stations that reported a spot that we haven’t heard about until now. Note, this may be a form letter, since it starts with “Dear Sir”. I suspect they got a lot of email. I’m convinced though, that 100 plus years ago, this speck would have gone unreported, and thus we now have a non- homogenous sunspot database due to changes in procedures and improvements in instrumentation. That is the most important issue that needs to be addressed. – Anthony
Dear Sir,
Many thanks for your interest in our activities and your feedback. The sunspot data for August have attracted a lot of attention already. More than they deserve maybe, because although it is true that we now have a long period of very low sunspot number, this is not yet something that is going to change the world.
I should first explain that we issue the sunspot index, which is the result of a statistical method applied to data from many stations, at three different times and with three different ‘qualities’:
1) the Estimated Internationals Sunspot Number (EISN) on a daily basis, with only a few stations and without a consistent recalculation of the K-factor of the stations
2) the Provisional International Sunspot Number on a monthly basis, always on the first of the month in principle before 11am, using an automated procedure with as little manual intervention as possible
3) the Definitive International Sunspot Number on a quarterly basis, when we have received data from all the contribution observatories. In this procedure, manual verification is used to remove inconsistencies, such as indeed the problem of hemispheric distribution that occurred in August.
About the data on August 21-22: indeed, many stations did not report any spots on August 21 and 22. Yet, a not insignificant number of stations DID send us reports of spot observation. This included indeed Catania Observatory, one of our main data providers. However, is it not at all the case that only Catania reported spots. If that were the case, the final outcome would have been zero indeed.
On August 21, a total of 17 stations reported spots (mostly a single spot). On August 22, 14 stations reported spots. This is sufficient to warrant a non-zero sunspot number for those days.
Concerning the hemispheric distribution, there it is obviously physically impossible to distribute the one spot observed over the two hemispheres. However, we received observation reports both in southern and in northern hemisphere, and with an automated procedure such as we
use for the provisional sunspot numbers, it is not evident to decide between north or south location. Combined with low sunspot counts (creating already doubts about whether to select zero or not) and the physically meaningful constraint but that is not obvious to implement statistically that total equals north+south, this sometimes leads to the current result. At the time that we provide the definitive numbers (typically after 3-6 months), based on all observers in the network, manual intervention will be used to determine the best choice for the hemispheric location. (In this instance, this choice will be simple, since only one observer put the spot in the south on August 21, while 2 did so on August 22.)
Kind regards,
Ronald Van der Linden
My original email follows:
> ——– Original Message ——–
> Subject: Fw: Request for correction of August 21/22 2008 sunspot data
> Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:03:09 -0700
> From: Anthony Watts – TVWeather awatts@xxxxxx.com
> To: rvdlinden@xxxx.org
> CC: sidctech@xxxx.be
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
> Your sunspot data for August 21st and August 22nd 2008 appears to be in
> error, as published on this web page:
>
> http://sidc.oma.be/products/ri_hemispheric/
>
> 21 7 4 3
> 22 8 4 4
> As you know, the 3rd column are ’spots’ in the Northern hemisphere, and
> the 4th column are ’spots’ in the Southern hemisphere
> [both weighted with the ‘k’-factor: SSN = k(10g+s)].
>
> But in reality, there weren’t any in the southern hemisphere observed at
> all either on SOHO, or in many amateur solar photographs published on
> that date, such as these from www.spaceweather.com
> <http://www.spaceweather.com>
>
>
> There has been some discussion that the questionable sunspot data for
> 08/21 and 08/22 originated at Catania Observatory in Italy.
>
> The Catania spot was at 15 degrees north latitude, not in the southern
> hemisphere, and as proof of that, I offer the drawings from Cantania
> those days.
>
> ftp://ftp.ct.astro.it/sundraw/OAC_D_20080821_063500.jpg
> ftp://ftp.ct.astro.it/sundraw/OAC_D_20080822_055000.jpg
>
> Might there have been a transcription or transmission error of some
> sorts? A confirmation and error check of this data is requested.
>
> Further, there are other prominent observatories that did not record the
> blemishes on the sun those days as “spots”, as they appear to be pores,
> there did not appear to be a well-defined penumbra.
>
> And other prominent solar observatories rightly ignored this as a pore.
>
> For example, at the 150 foot solar solar tower at the Mount Wilson
> Observatory <http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/cur_drw.html>, the drawings
> from those dates show no spots at all:
>
> ftp://howard.astro.ucla.edu/pub/obs/drawings/dr080821.jpg
>
> ftp://howard.astro.ucla.edu/pub/obs/drawings/dr080822.jpg
>
> NOAA does not recognize these as spots either:
>
> :Product: Daily Space Weather Indices dayind.txt
> :Issued: 2008 Sep 01 1815 UT
> # Prepared by the US Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, Space Weather Prediction
> Center
> # Product description and SWPC contact on the Web
> # http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/wwire.html
> #
> # Daily Space Weather Indices
> #
>
> 0801dayind.txt- 0 66 67 A0.0 -999
> 0802dayind.txt- 0 66 67 A0.0 -999
> 0803dayind.txt- 0 66 67 A0.0 -999
> 0804dayind.txt- 0 66 67 A0.0 -999
> 0805dayind.txt- 0 67 67 -1.0 -999
> 0806dayind.txt- 0 67 67 -1.0 -999
> 0807dayind.txt- 0 66 67 -1.0 -999
> 0808dayind.txt- 0 66 67 -1.0 -999
> 0809dayind.txt- 0 -1 -1 -1.0 -999
> 0810dayind.txt- 0 -1 -1 -1.0 -999
> 0811dayind.txt- 0 -1 -1 -1.0 -999
> 0812dayind.txt- 0 -1 -1 -1.0 -999
> 0813dayind.txt- 0 -1 -1 -1.0 -999
> 0814dayind.txt- 0 66 66 A0.0 -999
> 0815dayind.txt- 0 -1 -1 -1.0 -999
> 0817dayind.txt- 0 -1 -1 -1.0 -999
> 0818dayind.txt- 0 -1 -1 -1.0 -999
> 0819dayind.txt- 0 -1 -1 -1.0 -999
> 0820dayind.txt- 0 -1 -1 -1.0 -999
> 0821dayind.txt- 0 -1 -1 -1.0 -999
> 0822dayind.txt- 0 -1 -1 -1.0 -999
> 0823dayind.txt- 0 -1 -1 -1.0 -999
> 0824dayind.txt- 0 -1 -1 -1.0 -999
> 0825dayind.txt- 0 -1 -1 -1.0 -999
> 0826dayind.txt- 0 -1 -1 -1.0 -999
> 0827dayind.txt- 0 -1 -1 -1.0 -999
> 0828dayind.txt- 0 -1 -1 -1.0 -999
> 0829dayind.txt- 0 -1 -1 -1.0 -999
> 0830dayind.txt- 0 -1 -1 -1.0 -999
> 0831dayind.txt- -1 -1 -1 -1.0 -999
>
> Thus, with all that I have presented above, it is my sincere hope that
> SIDC will investigate the matter, and issue a correction for the
> erroneous southern hemisphere data, and possibly the existence of any
> sunspots at all on those dates.
>
> Thank you for your kind consideration.
>
> Anthony Watts
>
> __________ NOD32 3430 (20080910) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
—
Royal Observatory of Belgium
Ringlaan 3
B-1180 Brussel (Belgium)
Tel ++32-(0)2-3730249 Fax ++32-(0)2-3730224
http://sidc.oma.be http://www.astro.oma.be
============================================================================
== Aucun individu n’est parfait mais une équipe peut l’aider à le devenir ==
============================================================================
== Perfect ben je nooit, maar je komt er dichter bij als je in team werkt ==
============================================================================
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There must be a problem with measurement consistency as I don’t believe the spot(s) August 21/22 would have been identified throughout the history of sunspot measurements.
I have bigger spots on my monitor. I had to scroll to see which one belonged to the graphic and which ones need to be cleaned
I made that comment some time ago about the detection of sunspots in the ol’ days. Even with today’s hightech, this little sunspot almost went undetected. You can bet your lab coats that there must have been at least one of those during those spotless days recording. If that is the case, we might be at the top of the list without know it.
I’m sure it wasn’t his intent, but this sounds a little ominous.
“…this is not yet something that is going to change the world.”
MikeEE
I know that observing conditions may change between locations but this program appears to be based on consensus between stations.
Indeed. Indeed. Indeed.
MikEE,
I did not find it so much omnious as dimissive and condecending, it was sarcasm pure and simple, trust me I know.
I still do not really understand how they count /distribute these but it seems to be by popular opinion or sledge hammer as necessary.
“although it is true that we now have a long period of very low sunspot number, this is not yet something that is going to change the world.”
A tad snarky, doncha think? Although much could be made of the word ‘yet’. 🙂 How long would the inactivity have to continue before it does?
So why did it take them over a week to figure it out?
Lots of people knew there was something to look for based on the multiple satellite and other images we have of the sun now. So if they knew where to look for it, and pointed their telescopes at the right region, it doesn’t surprise me at all that a lot of people “found” it.
This goes back to the point: Back in the Day, if you didn’t know something was on the sun and where, are you going to stare at one region and adjust and wipe your eyes and clean your lenses and look again a little harder until you finally think you see something? Doubtful.
Don’t we do double-blind experiments to help keep even the most conscientious scientists from subconsciously leaning toward a particular outcome?
IMO any observation of the sun done by observers who already know that something is there is an invalid observation, if the goal is to maintain consistency back to the beginning of the record.
Perhaps Leif can explain to us about the other stations that reported a spot that we haven’t heard about until now
There is no other spot [and even if there were only one spot as per SIDC “However, is it not at all the case that only Catania reported spots. If that were the case, the final outcome would have been zero indeed” if would not have been counted anyway. The problem is that by having a large number of observers their quality obviously vary and the chance of clerical errors increase. Ronald has repeatedly explained to me “Dear Leif, We’ve already discussed this before. The separation of the one spot over the two hemispheres is due to the fact that some observers do send us wrong locations” that they know that some observers do send in wrong data.
According to SIDC this is no big deal [no surprise: who would make a big deal out of one’s own mistakes]. I happen to disagree, but that is, perhaps, just me being too picky. The older procedure was to use a single ‘primary’ observer, and only fill in with ‘secondary’, ‘tertiary’, etc, observers when data for a day was missing. One can argue merits of both ways.
The sunspot number is an obsolete measure of solar activity whose only justification is its very long historical record. A long record only has value if it has a reasonably correct ‘calibration’ in the sense that the ‘splice’ between different observers and providing institutions is correct, and we know that it is not. A wrongly calibrated series is worse than no series at all, because it leads to unjustified speculation and [at times] ‘convenient’, but wrong, conclusions.
Manually checking after 3 to 6 months is not good enough, especially since the real-time values may go into models or schemes that attempt to predict ‘space weather’. It would seem that it would be an absolute minor thing to correct the table right now, today, or a week ago, when they know it is wrong.
Whether or not the pores would have been counted centuries ago is a bit moot because we attempt to compensate for that with appropriate k-factors.
An interesting question can be raised: In a matter of months we’ll be able to see both the front [SIDC] and the back of the Sun [STEREO A & B]. Should we count the spots on the backside? That would double the sunspot number. Maybe take the average of the two sides?
As a fun aside, it has been known for a century that there are more spots on the ‘left’ [East] side of the solar disk than on the ‘right’ [West] side, http://solar.physics.montana.edu/SVECSE2008/pdf/dalla_svecse.pdf
In fact, this results in a large number of young spots being invisible: 44% of new regions emerging in the West of the Sun go undetected.
The BTS-crew interprets [e.g. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976BSRSL..45..211D ] that as proof of planetary tides causing/influencing sunspots. Go figure.
Climate Heretic (11:17:01) :
I did not find it so much omnious as dimissive and condecending, it was sarcasm pure and simple, trust me I know.
I agree 100%
Off topic. Those of us who live in Britain may need to get some warm clothes for the coming winters as it seems to be legal to vandalise and destroy our power industry
“Power station protesters cleared”
“Six Greenpeace activists have been cleared of causing criminal damage during a protest over coal-fired power.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7608054.stm
I hope that jury are the first to suffer power cuts caused by their verdict
Ronald Van der Linden:
About the issue of one spot only:
He writes:
This included indeed Catania Observatory, one of our main data providers. However, it is not at all the case that only Catania reported spots. If that were the case, the final outcome would have been zero indeed.
so a single observatory reporting a single spot would not cause that spot to be counted.
But, then he says a bit further down:
In this instance, this choice will be simple, since only one observer put the spot in the south on August 21, while 2 did so on August 22.)
But, here ‘in this instance’ the single, sole observer that reported a single spot in the wrong location [South] nevertheless, in spite of the first statement, caused that single spot to be counted.
So, there are inconsistencies here. The difference in count is not so important as the slack in procedures and, perhaps, in trying to explain away a simple mistake. Nothing wrong with mistakes, if they are admitted and corrected, and that sooner rather than later.
I think English might not be Mr Van der Linden’s mother tongue. It is possible that his sentence could have been better translated as “would not make a world of difference” – i say this as smoebody who reads both Flemish & Dutch. I might be wrong, though.
Since June 23rd (79 days ago from today, Sept 10), even counting 1 spot in August, there has only been 4 days with spots. (see http://www.dxlc.com/solar/ ). There is lots of data out there on consecutive spotless days, what about mostly spotless streaks? ie 4 days in 79, or 1 day in 100 etc. It would be interesting to put this in a slightly different historical perspective.
Dr. Leif:
A rare moment in science ……
My theory … and … My data … by: Dr. Ronald Van der Linden:
“October 2006, the ‘Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel’ met for the first time in Boulder, Colorado to figure out what how the sun will behave in the future. The expertise of the SIDC was presented in this international panel by solar physicist Dr. Ronald Van der Linden.”
http://sidc.be/news/094/welcome.html
In his response, Van der Linden said, “although it is true that we now have a long period of very low sunspot number, this is not yet something that is going to change the world.”
“Not yet…” What does that mean?
Sounds to me like Van der Linden is saying that if very low sunspot numbers continue, then it will be something that is going to change the world.
james hansen gave evidence at maidstone crown court in defence of the greenpeace chimney painters.
I agree with Leif and Climate Heretic, the condescending and arrogant tone, the downright rudeness, seems typical of these government ‘entitlement class’ bloodsuckers living off taxpayers, when ‘forced’ have dealings with them.
Fernando Mafili (12:53:13) :
A rare moment in science ……
My theory … and … My data … by: Dr. Ronald Van der Linden:
“October 2006, the ‘Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel’ met for the first time in Boulder, Colorado to figure out what how the sun will behave in the future. The expertise of the SIDC was presented in this international panel by solar physicist Dr. Ronald Van der Linden.”
I know, I am also on that panel. I actually recommended that Van der Linden be included, because it would be good to have a representative from SIDC.
Here is my gut prediction: Sometime at the end of 2008 or beginning of 2009, the sun’s cycle 24 will start but by 2013-2016 it will unexpectedly collapse and plunge us into a solar minimum that will last from 50 to 75 years, bring harsh and cold weather conditions.
Will humanity learn something from that? I would not hold my breath.
Ok!!
I agree with Leif (200%) and Climate Heretic (100%)
Because I am signed up to receive various emails from the SIDC
http://sidc.be/registration/
today I received “the Definitive International Sunspot Number on a quarterly basis, when we have received data from all the contribution observatories,” which Mr. Van der Linden mentions above.
It is for January, February, March.
Of 2008, though.
David Gladstone (13:05:44) :
I agree with Leif and Climate Heretic, the condescending and arrogant tone, the downright rudeness, seems typical of these government ‘entitlement class’ bloodsuckers living off taxpayers, when ‘forced’ have dealings with them.
I’m not sure I agree with the latter part of your detailed characterization of the dietary habits of the people involved. But, the tone is typical of institutional CYA attitude.