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.
What is the minimum size of a sunspot to get detected? Could there be still micro-sunspots that we are not seeing because of the limit of detection of our instruments?
Mike Bryant (21:11:42) :
Leif that is interesting news. Good luck finding Friedli.
I’m also trying to get funding or a sponsor for a visit with Friedli. Would make an interesting TV-docu, you know: tour the old observatory, tell the story, see the instrument, rescue old records from destruction, then continue to SIDC in Brussels, finishing up at NOAA in Boulder. Something like that.
Leif Svalgaard (22:40:53) :
Mike Bryant (21:11:42) :
Leif that is interesting news. Good luck finding Friedli.
I’m also trying to get funding or a sponsor for a visit with Friedli. Would make an interesting TV-docu, you know: tour the old observatory, tell the story, see the instrument, rescue old records from destruction, then continue to SIDC in Brussels, finishing up at NOAA in Boulder. Something like that.
Easy – just declare that you are investigating AGW caused by sunspot disappearance and a grant will surely find its way to you 🙂
The following information might be of interest.
Ronald Van der Linden is Director of the Royal Observatory of Belgium at Uccle (near Brussels) and is head of the SIDC.
On August 21 (notice the date!) the Belgian amateur astronomer and solar observer Franky Dubois posted a short message on the Mailing List of our Belgian Dutch-language VVS (Vereniging Voor Sterrenkunde) entitled “Eindelijk zonnevlekken”, which means ‘sunspots at last’. His message begins (I translate into English):
“I just observed, through an opening in the clouds, two small sunspots about 15 degrees from the Sun’s eastern limb.”
Jean Meeus
From Jan Janssens website:
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Engwelcome.html
—
“10 September 08 – On Anthony Watts’s website, some comments from the SIDC were published today concerning the small sunspotgroup of 21-22 August. It is very likely that SIDC will indeed consider the small specks as a sunspotgroup and that the Wolfnumber will be on full account of the northern solar hemisphere. I fully agree with SIDC that there has been too much discussion on whether or not a sunspotgroup was visible. THE conclusion is that solar activity of the last couple of months has been the lowest of the current solar cycle transition so far.”
—
Many scientists appear to be used to working obscurely sharing data amongst peers, I don’t think many of them are used to this level of public scrutiny of their work a site like this can generate. I get the impression that they veiw people from a site like this as like a bunch of school kids, lots of enthusiasm, but lacking in intimate knowledge of their feilds and interupting them with impertinent questions.
It seems me to that a decrease in primary heat input to the earth will have an impact, it is just a queston of how much. If TSI varies by 0.1% over a cycle it is not an order of magnitude of difference between that and the total century long rise of temperature expressed in Kelvin. (Being generous and making it 0.6deg C over the century, then my very rough calc is about 0.2% change to the earths absolute temperature over a century.) IMHO a series of low and long TSI cycles is quite capable of majorly impacting climate.
Granted their are a large number of internal buffers and factors that influence climate, including greenhouse gases, oceanic buffering (varied by various currents) but their seems just too many factors that we have only just begun to understand to really make any sensible predictions on what is exactly happening on earth. We are only just factoring in ENSO, but presumeably other oceans have similar albeit probably smaller cycles. (eg IOD (Indian Ocean Dipole) which really has an effect an South Eastern Australian weather even though we are as far from the Indian Ocean as London is from Warsaw.)
How many cyclic climate systems may exist with cycles over 30-40 years, it would only take one to make our whole calculations errant given how short our accurate weather measurement is.
(BTW as this is my first post after reading for several months, I really enjoy your blog.)
Les Francis (23:07:29)
‘Easy – just declare that you are investigating AGW caused by sunspot disappearance and a grant will surely find its way to you :)’
It could be REAL easy -just declare that you are investigating sunspot disappearance caused by AGW and a grant will surely find you tomarrow.
Leif says,
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.
For the layman, could you give a comparison between this historical equipment used to view sunspots in the past to the equipment used at the Catania Observatory in Italy. Is it likely that the recent sun speck could have been seen through an 80mm refractor, my view is NO.
Going back further in time, what were the designs of these earlier telescopes and could they have seen this sun speck, I think not, better equipment = more sun specks/spots.
Leif Svalgaard (23:21:14) :
“From Jan Janssens website:
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Engwelcome.html
“”…there has been too much discussion on whether or not a sunspotgroup was visible. THE conclusion is that solar activity of the last couple of months has been the lowest of the current solar cycle transition so far.””
The current system of international observation stations and warning centers was NEVER intended as a system to provide clues to climate.
The intended “operational” customers for this information are electric grid operators, satellite operators, NASA, the military, etc.
Any study of sun-climate relationships will have to “piggy-back” on systems intended for other purposes.
Of more interest in this regard, I think, is whether the August speck or pore had a Cycle 23 magnetic signature (one of the “1 in 30” Leif mentioned last month), or a Cycle 24 signature (similar to those among the 1st 20 sunspot groups of the last 3 cycles to appear in low latitudes, according to Janssens).
We’ve seen over the past few months, Cycle 24 magnetic regions which fail to produce a spot then fade away completely within a day or two.
Cycle 23 meanwhile still managed to produce the occasional spot.
Was August a case of slightly stronger Cycle 24 activity, or slightly weaker Cycle 23 activity?
It’s a new world we live in.
Perhaps the tone of the response is patronizing and condesending, but I suspect that any established scientist would find it uncomfortable to suddenly find his work placed under the microscope of hordes of laymen. Their rather cloistered world is rapidly diminishing in size. My other reaction to the SIDC response is that it appears to have more transparency than one might expect from another scientist such as Mann might exhibit towards Climate Audit and Steve McIntyre.
Rob (03:06:50) :
For the layman, could you give a comparison between this historical equipment used to view sunspots in the past to the equipment used at the Catania Observatory in Italy. Is it likely that the recent sun speck could have been seen through an 80mm refractor, my view is NO.
You can see the instruments here at http://www.ct.astro.it/sun/
It is much better than the old 80mm refractor, but as I have said repeatedly this shouldn’t matter because each observer has his own ‘k-factor’ that compensates for that.
BTW, right now Catania is seeing a pair of tiny spots at 7 degree North latitude (these are old cycle 23 spots): http://www.ct.astro.it/sun/draw.jpg
I don’t think NOAA will assign a region number to these spots unless the region grows in size.
John-X (06:01:52) :
Was August a case of slightly stronger Cycle 24 activity, or slightly weaker Cycle 23 activity?
In spite of its somewhat low latitude (15 degrees) the magnetic signature was a cycle 24, so I’ll go with that, although we won’t know for sure.
Leon Brozyna (06:05:29) :
My other reaction to the SIDC response is that it appears to have more transparency than one might expect from another scientist such as Mann
I’ll agree with that. SIDC at least responded, albeit somewhat reluctantly.
You don’t need to get an old telescope. For an 80 mm refractor, the resolution is approximately 1.4 arcsecond –
theta (resolution in arcsecs)
lambda (light frequency, assume yellow light 550 nm)
D (diameter of lens) 80 mm
theta = 2.1 x 10^5 x lambda / D
The sun’s “diameter” is around 32 arc minutes, or 1920 arcsecs. Venus (appearing on the sun) is approximately 60 arcseconds. A big sunspot group can be up to 180 arcsecs…
Leif can probably talk more as to the “average” size of minimal diameter sunspecs (as well as my calculation) but I’m guessing that such a sunspot (if the drawing is representative of what actually was seen) could have been observed. I just did a quick measurement using the drawing (and it was crude) and the sunspeck as indicated in the drawing is about 1-2 arcsecs, which matches the .25 mm measurement indicated.
Now refractors do have some aberation, but the f14 should have minimized that. Also, I don’t believe the optics of the last century would that horrible. I’m betting they were good and handcrafted…
OT: Trying to remove the oceanic oscillation noise by using the mid points of the warming periods as the starting point of each cycle, I figured that the TSI increase of 0.15C could have accounted for 41% of the 1930-1990 warming. I graphed it and included some numbers.
http://users.vianet.ca/paulak2r/AGW/MyModel.jpg
Any thoughts?
John M Reynolds
Brendan (08:25:11) :
don’t believe the optics of the last century would that horrible. I’m betting they were good and handcrafted…
Fraunhofer was one the greatest telescope makers of all times. The problem is not the optics, but the procedure. How to count spots? Look at this image [from 2004] http://www.leif.org/research/sunspot.png and count how many spots there are. Post the count back here. Other commenters count too, please.
Any thoughts?
For what it’s worth, awhile back I did the simple comparison of change in TSI vs. change in temperature (but I was forced to use surface temperature measurements) in degrees Kelvin, did a division and wound up with 43% (IIRC).
But I was informed this didn’t have effect on a 1-1 basis by those who know much better about the subject than I do.
I still don’t see why every one of the Big Six oceanic-atmospheric multidecadal cycles going from cold to warm phase couldn’t have raised temperatures a measly 0.3 to 0.4°C. No, I can’t establish a causal connection, but I point out the correlation.
After changing my mind more times than there are spots… I decided on 6.
Brendan (08:25:11) :
You don’t need to get an old telescope. For an 80 mm refractor, the resolution is approximately 1.4 arcsecond –
theta (resolution in arcsecs)
lambda (light frequency, assume yellow light 550 nm)
D (diameter of lens) 80 mm
theta = 2.1 x 10^5 x lambda / D
These are theoretical numbers for diffraction I think. In real life, optical quality also counts. Compare cheap achromatic vs. expensive apochromatic refractors. But above all the “seeing” counts much more than anything else for faint/small spots. Seeing is a term used to express the amount of turbulence in the air, it varies a lot from place to place and from time to time. With bad seeing it is as if you are looking at the sky from the bottom of a swimming pool.
In the old days they used achromats with long focal lengths (to compensate for colour abberations). Long focal lengths (higher magnification) are more sensitive to poor seeing than shorter focal lengths.
Many factors contribute to observation quality.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (09:58:10) :
But above all the “seeing” counts much more than anything else for faint/small spots. Seeing is a term used to express the amount of turbulence in the air, it varies a lot from place to place and from time to time. With bad seeing it is as if you are looking at the sky from the bottom of a swimming pool.
Catania [on top of Mt. Etna at 10,000 feet] has superb seeing [that was why it was put there]. Carsten, how many spots do you count?
Others, come on now, submit your counts.
Thanks Evan
In case it was not apparent, I used HadCRUT anomoly data up to 2007. I should say that my ‘model’ makes some hefty assumptions like the 0.14 warming from 1870-1930 continued regardless of what caused it. The feedbacks present at -0.5 C will still be present at the same ratio when the temp anomoly hits 1.0 C. As well the level of volcanic activity would remain about the same.
(Note: I am not trying to predict that a volcano will erupt in 2051 and 2111 with the same magnitude and effect as Mount Pintabo.)
The straight red line assumes the rate of temperature increase will continue to be 0.365 C every 60 years while the lower straight green line assumes we will return to the ‘historic’ 0.14 C every 60 years for temperature increase.
John M Reynolds
Leif Svalgaard (10:05:37) :
Catania [on top of Mt. Etna at 10,000 feet] has superb seeing [that was why it was put there]. Carsten, how many spots do you count?
That is a highly magnified and highly processed picture (probably a stack of many single frames) taken with a for me uknown size telescope and camera pixel size (all very important for resolution in good seeing), far different from a visual observation through small telescopes. I don’t know how to set my k-factor for that. So frankly I do not know if a sensible answer can be given to that question. I presume that is your point? What is the field of view btw?
I am not a trained sunspot observer, but I think there are some rules to having a well defined umbra/penumbra. There is one (?) big spot that might qualify and several that don’t have complete penumbrae (if that is the correct term). Then there may be smaller “pores”, right?
Depending on the factors mentioned I guess you can arrive at many different answers, but I am guessing that this is such a huge magnification and complex proessing that the adjustment factor reduces it to a single sunspot in one group, i.e. wolf number k*11, where k is unknoiwn 🙂
Btw., in 2004 I made an observation of a sunspot group with several different telescopes and focal lengths:
http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sunspot649/index.html
How many spots do you see there, and why?
This just in:
:Issued: 2008 Sep 11 1204 UTC
:Product: documentation at http://www.sidc.be/products/quieta
#——————————————————————–#
# From the SIDC (RWC-Belgium): “ALL QUIET” ALERT #
END OF ALL QUIET ALERT …………………. The SIDC – RWC Belgium
expects solar or geomagnetic activity to increase. This may end quiet Space Weather conditions.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (10:52:50) :
That is a highly magnified and highly processed picture (probably a stack of many single frames) taken with a for me uknown size telescope and camera pixel size (all very important for resolution in good seeing), far different from a visual observation through small telescopes.
It is a single picture taken with an ‘Astrophysics’ 130 mm EDF f/6 refractor [by Friedli, BTW].
Btw., in 2004 I made an observation of a sunspot group with several different telescopes and focal lengths:
http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sunspot649/index.html
How many spots do you see there, and why?
I count 8 big spots [some with ‘lightbridges’], 12 medium spots and 20 small spots, on the picture labeled ‘C8_prime_focus.jpg’
I don’t know how to set my k-factor for that.
The k-factor is not to be set by you, you just count the best you can, then analysis afterwards can establish what k should be. I don’t know what the field of view was.
So what is your count? Other than 1.
mcates (09:29:15) :
After changing my mind more times than there are spots… I decided on 6.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (10:52:50) :
but I am guessing that this is such a huge magnification and complex proessing that the adjustment factor reduces it to a single sunspot in one group, i.e. wolf number k*11, where k is unknown one thus.
It seems that nobody else wants to bite. So here is my take:
Here are the Mount Wilson Drawing for that sunspot group. Keep in mind that the drawing is made by projecting the solar image and is therefore mirrored:
ftp://howard.astro.ucla.edu/pub/obs/drawings/2004/dr040619.jpg
The observers had lumped this group in with another group [just to the left of it] and designated the location of the group by two lines marked S10 and E15. NOAA also had this as one group [number 10635]. Below [to the right separated from the large spots by a dashed line] is another group of small spots marked by S15, E23. Looking at the magnetic polarities (the Vs and Rs) it looks to me like three groups.
Here is the Catania drawing. they had lumbed all of those spots into one group designated ‘3’:
ftp://ftp.ct.astro.it/Sole02/2004/Draw04/2004_06_June/OAC_D_20040619_060500.jpg
The total number of spots is large. I count 63 spots for the whole of ‘3’. Catania counts 59 [see the table at upper right]. For the part of the group that I showed at http://www.leif.org/research/sunspot.png I count 21 spots on Catania’s drawing and 32 spots on the Mt. Wilson drawing. Clearly Catania and Mt. Wilson have large instruments with superb seeing so their ‘k-values’ would be less than one, perhaps 0.5 or less.
SIDC reports for that day [2004, June 19] a southern sunspot count of 51.
So, you see, this is a tricky business, and everything depends on how you weight the different observers via their k-factors. Today SIDC has an elaborate procedure for that. 200 years ago it was much harder to gauge the k-values with far fewer and often non-overlapping observations, and they have large errors. Bottom line: the sunspot series is very uncertain going back in time.
BTW, SOHO MDI is not seeing the Catania spots right now.