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.
MARK (12:56:41) :
” james hansen gave evidence at maidstone crown court in defence of the greenpeace chimney painters.”
I wonder what one can NOT get away with, using the Global Warming defense.
“================================================
== 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 ==”
Barf!
Loosely translated, this says, ‘No individual is perfect, but working as a team you can approach perfection.’
Barf!
This guy could be the bad guy in any Ayn Rand novel.
Leif,
In your reading of this, do you see an explanation of why the reported number in the ursigrams was “000” on both of those days, if in fact (and I have no reason to doubt it) “On August 21, a total of 17 stations reported spots (mostly a single spot).”
Basil
REPLY: Yep, I was wondering the same thing, and I was hoping Leif or someon would chime in with an answer. If I don’t get one, that will be my next SIDC query. – Anthony
“REPLY: Yep, I was wondering the same thing…”
As I understand it, the answer Leif got from SIDC and posted in last month’s thread on this topic, is that they do a manual count for the ursigrams, then for some reason use an automated process for the monthly tally.
The automated count is a “provisional” count until the “definitive” count comes out, but as I found out today, there’s about a six month lag.
So we can expect the “definitive” number (which will only fix the southern hemisphere non-spot; they’ve already said the actual speck or pore is to be included in the final count) about February or March.
Basil (15:17:54) :
In your reading of this, do you see an explanation of why the reported number in the ursigrams was “000″ on both of those days, if in fact (and I have no reason to doubt it) “On August 21, a total of 17 stations reported spots (mostly a single spot).”
REPLY: Yep, I was wondering the same thing, and I was hoping Leif or someon would chime in with an answer. If I don’t get one, that will be my next SIDC query. – Anthony
No, I don’t know why. When I asked Ronald, I got this answer [disregard the slight snottiness]:
“Dear Leif,
I’m sure there must be somebody out there who knows what the word ‘ESTIMATED’ means in the daily bulletins!
Besides that, it is a puzzle to me that they all look so attentively at our messages, but do not see this line just below the monthly average:
COOPERATING STATIONS : 65 59 59
Now, why would we report on 65 cooperating stations and only use Catania?
Maybe as a steady contributor to the discussions, you could set them straight on that issue? You may even direct them to this page on our website:
http://sidc.be/aboutSIDC/index.php
where they can get more information on how we do it. The numbers on the page are slightly out of date, but they have the general principle.”
I agree with others. This looks like a report that has been made by someone thinking in one language translating it literally into English while writing it down. As such an interpretation by native English speakers may give a different angle.
To a native English speaker it may seem to have an underlying interruption – how dare you question us.
I always wondered what the difference between PISN and DISN was. And I’m resisting the urge to quip that a lot of it has flared up over nothing.
But seriously, I really would like to see a transcript of Dr Hansen’s Maidstone Crown Court testimony. I assume it was given under oath, and under penalty of perjury.
Well, to quote Bill,
“Out! Out! Damned Spot!”
Les Francis (16:56:57) :
This looks like a report that has been made by someone thinking in one language translating it literally into English while writing it down.
I speak both French and Flemish Dutch [the latter Ronald’s native tongue] and I cannot think of a French or Dutch phrase that would translate literally into “this is not yet something that is going to change the world”.
I think it is a big deal over nothing on both sides. Whether the sun is completely spotless or has tiny specks here and there is really irrelevant to my mind. It’s about the same difference between a powerful tropical storm (winds, say, at 70 mph) and a hurricane (winds at 75 mph). It is important to accurately record them, of course, and I will not dispute that. Nobody likes criticism of their work, particularly if they feel they are trying their best. Nonetheless, I think the criticisms on correction times are warranted. They certainly cannot be so busy as to take half the year at most to correct it. At the same time, this system is dependent upon human observers, and is as much open to flaws as the surface temperature stations Anthony majors on. So until we get satellites up there in positions and amounts to our liking, we will just have to go with what we’ve got. I’m sure they receive a fair amount of criticism from many quarters, and it is hard enough to do work without everybody else offering their opinions. Not that I think criticisms are unwarranted or that the opinions (if well informed) should cease. But as I said…whether the sun has small specks or is completely spotless, in practical terms, does not seem to make a big difference. I am open to correction on this point of course.
Dear Sir:
“Thank you for calling and, sir, won’t you call back, again?”
Well, I was one of the folks pointing out very low sunspot count was nearly as informative as a zero count, though I do appreciate the psychological (and propaganda) value of a zero month.
However, I’m getting to be a lot more concerned about the data collection and processing aspects. GISS and Hansen have a lot more work to do to come up with the monthly average temperature (well, okay, they come up with the wrong temperature (cheap shot)). While a few years ago the level of interest in the sunspot number was low enough that SIDC could take their sweet time, they don’t seem very interested in more timely data collecting or quality control. Very disappointing.
I’ve been reluctant to embrace the 10.7 cm radio flux figures, in part because anyone can see a sunspot (if it’s big enough), but at least it’s easier to get a figure that can match other’s measurements without all this nonsense of deciding if a spot is worthy of being counted. The sunspot record is a lot longer than the 10.7 cm record, so spots will be important for a long time to come.
I wonder what will happen with the two metrics if sunspots fade from view by 2015.
My guess is that the 10.7 will still be there, weaker than if the spots were visible, stronger than a blank sun.
Ric Werme (18:47:04) :
My guess is that the 10.7 will still be there, weaker than if the spots were visible, stronger than a blank sun.
Yes, I estimate 10.7 to be about 100 at maximum.
Leif Svalgaard (17:24:39) :
This looks like a report that has been made by someone thinking in one language translating it literally into English while writing it down.
I speak both French and Flemish Dutch [the latter Ronald’s native tongue] and I cannot think of a French or Dutch phrase that would translate literally into “this is not yet something that is going to change the world”.
I should add: and mean something different.
Leif Svalgaard (17:24:39) :
Les Francis (16:56:57) :
This looks like a report that has been made by someone thinking in one language translating it literally into English while writing it down.
I speak both French and Flemish Dutch [the latter Ronald’s native tongue] and I cannot think of a French or Dutch phrase that would translate literally into “this is not yet something that is going to change the world.”
Lets misinterpret that last sentence in other ways.
“this is not yet something that is going to change the world.”
(a) This is not an issue that will change the world
(b) This is not an issue that will change the world – yet.
Who said English is not a complicated language?
I look at it this way: If sunspot counters going back in the historically unbroken record would not have seen it, that’s 1strike.
If the actual sunspot # is less than 1 (in this case 0.5) I am going to count our offiicial records out and start over, what’s the point of keeping records?
Strike 2.
With our modern detectors, we can see spots that are not visible by any other means (like X-ray and others), so we are finding ourselves primed to resolve these otherwise inconsequential specks, and there isn’t a sunspeck record going back 150 yrs, so Strike 3.
It doesn’t count for comparison purposes for those of us who are looking back on the 154 yr record to help figure out where we currently stand.
Maybe all the named Minimums had sunspecks, we will never know.
51 days and counting.
OK, let’s think about this for a second, and ascribe to the authors (all of them) a reasonable effort to be civil.
The propaganda value of a month without sunspots, however tiny (?) is huge. It allows those of us who dispute the popular cry of “global warming” to beat our chests and say “see I was right all along”! But if we are truely in our political position (for it is a political position) because the science is telling us that the world is not heating but cooling, then this “VICTORY!” is hollow, and we are craving the emotional feeling of our SUPERIOR minds. The scarcasm is intended by the way.
There are issues yet to be thrashed out. Leif says he’s not convinced the sun is the major climate driver; Pielke is pretty solid on land use change; and Anthony is hot on data gathering (surface station) problems. Once again, I’ve really simplified these folks’ positions, and to the extent I’ve not carried the details, I apologise, because there’s a lot of nuances to each persons’ argument, and I understand that.
I’m sure there are anthropologists, rock hounds, amature science and weather folks out there just itching to get some “hands on” stuff. How about designing a small 1750 era telescope to see what was seen then? How’s about a software that collects data like the science people did three or four hundred years ago? How about that data coming back to these blogs to assist the authors in their work?
Being a telephone guy, I tend to look at the systems. Sun spots are an indicator of the sun’s activity. Doesn’t matter if there are small spots or not, for all practical purposes, the sun is at low ebb. Some folks are saying that the temperature and magnetic flux are dropping and that is indicative of a sleeping sun. Anthony and Pielke are pointing to bad data and man-caused (yea we don’t get a free pass on this) hot spots on the earth.
What’s the system doing? It’s cooling mostly, the sun is asleep, and things may look bad, especially if mostly well-meaning people start messing with the ecology now. Time will tell.
Will the AGW crowd win? Probably for a time. Face facts, they have the media’s attention. Most of the western world parks its (use your favorite body part) in front of the television and listens to a talking head who usually did poorly in science. But eventually, if we are right, the tide will turn.
I think that many contributers on this site have a glimpse of what is actually happening, I don’t think any of us have the true picture yet. Our job is to chip at consensus thinking bit by bit, and try our best to keep from the idiocy of the fractured arguments presented by those who subscribe to an unchanging environment.
Mike
Mike Bentley, Nicely said.
– Anthony
As another telephone man.
It’s all a matter of “perception”.
Perception is the Politicians and medias tool. Perception can mean anything with statistics and spin.
Meanwhile nature or the ‘real universe’ does what it always has done – changes at will, and theres not a thing that humankind can do about it.
Mike Bentley – I second Anthony’s “Nicely said” Good words to keep in mind! Let none of us forget we are scientists 1st & to argue this smartly from a scientific perspective, not stupidly from a political perspective, otherwise we are no better than those we disagree with.
All
TNX
(I will retire to bed with the glow!)
Mike
Michael J. Bentley (20:26:41) :
How about designing a small 1750 era telescope to see what was seen then? How’s about a software that collects data like the science people did three or four hundred years ago? How about that data coming back to these blogs to assist the authors in their work?
Although not quite 1750, Rudolf Wolf [the ‘inventor’ of the sunspot number] started his observations in 1849 and from 1855 used a 80mm f/14 Fraunhofer refractor. This instrument still exists and is being used [still, as far as I know] to count spots by a Swiss Amateur Thomas K. Friedli [at least he states in his Thesis work, 2005: “Erst 1995 mussten die Beobachtungsinstrumente im Zuge der Gesamtrenovation des Sternwartengebäudes von der Dachterrasse und aus der Kuppel entfernt werden (Friedli et al. 1998). Die möglichst tägliche Bestimmung der Wolfschen Sonnenfleckenrelativzahl am Fraunhoferschen Normalrefraktor wird seither von mir vorgenommen.”]. I have tried to get in contact with him, but to now without luck.
Leif that is interesting news. Good luck finding Friedli.
Has anyone tried Astromart? You can easily put an ad in there for an F14 or F15 Fraunhofer and find one. A couple hundred thousand amatuer astronomers will know where to look, they collect telescopes like that just for the fun of it.
www dot astromart dot com
check the classifieds.
Worldwide readership.