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.
Long focal lengths (higher magnification) are more sensitive to poor seeing than shorter focal lengths.
Wrong, focal length has nothing to do with it. Higher magnification is more sensitive to poor seeing. A longer focal length is easier to focus.
When counting sunspots, there are some simple rules observers use. The whole sun has be in the field of view. With gives a magnification of 60 to 80x.
So if you have a telescope with a long focal length you have to use an eyepiece that gives you an small magnification.
Carsten, I forgot to show the Mount Wilson drawing of your spot
ftp://howard.astro.ucla.edu/pub/obs/drawings/2004/dr040812.jpg
They show many more spots than I could count, for obvious reasons.
My personal sunspot count for that day was 85, 3 groups 55 spots. 2 groups where visible to the naked eye (with filter off course).
Jef (11:53:01) :
When counting sunspots, there are some simple rules observers use. The whole sun has be in the field of view. With gives a magnification of 60 to 80x.
So if you have a telescope with a long focal length you have to use an eyepiece that gives you an small magnification.
The count is usually done on a projected image, like this:
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:7h2IbQgGfbkSzM:http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~ipswich/Observations/ToV/R_Gooding_mid_trans.jpg
I wanted to show this image:
http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~ipswich/Observations/ToV/R_Gooding_mid_trans.jpg
Jef (12:07:42) :
My personal sunspot count for that day was 85, 3 groups 55 spots. 2 groups where visible to the naked eye (with filter off course).
Sounds like you are doing this regularly. Any statistics? Plots to share? Would love to see them.
Leif Svalgaard (11:36:36) :
So what is your count? Other than 1.
I did a small excercise, before reading your post (11:44:21) and made some notes:
Well now I am biased, because I will use your terms only guessing their definitions. For the Catania image you provided, if it was taken in prime focus, the focal length becomes 780 mm, slightly longer than my C8 0.3x focal reducer example. The details of that image tells me it must have been taken with a small pixel camera and the image extensively cropped, since the spot appears so large. But maybe it is instead more likely that a barlow lens was used, but not mentioned, as the resolution is very fine. So maybe the focal length is 1560mm or even 2340mm. I thought that was important for me to make even a biased guess (assuming it to be compared with some kind of visual observation).
I still think there is 1 major spot there, but if we try to elaborate using big and medium spots
1 big, 8 medium/small
Counting spots in my own images of the August 2004 spot at different magnifications:
1 400mm refractor /w 0.6 reducer
3 groups
group 1: 5 big, 4 medium
group 2: 2 medium
group 3: 1 medium
2 400mm refractor prime focus (star diagonal)
4 groups
group 1: 5 big, 4 medium
group 2: 2 medium
group 2: 1 medium
group 3: 1 small
3 400mm refractor 2x Meade barlow (star diagonal)
1 group: 7 big, 10 medium
4 400mm refractor 3x Televue barlow (star diagonal)
1 group: 7 big, 11 medium
5 C8 0.3x Meade focal reducer
1 group: 8 big, 13 medium
6 C8 prime focus
1 group: 8 big, 16 medium
7 C8 2x Meade barlow
8 C8 3x Televue barlow
The sunspot group is cropped, but at this magnification it becomes difficult to know what big, medium and small means
As you can see I don’t even agree with myself if I switch equipment and look at the same spot. Now that I have read your other post I can see I am off by a factor of 60 compared to you. Clearly I have no training in this.
I can agree that old observations were tricky and had large errors. But I wonder if they actually had less variability in one sense: Most observed visually. Today the equipment varies enourmosly. So I would not count out the possibility that the uncertainty of todays observation is is just as large, especially if someone like me took part 🙂
Jef (11:53:01) :
Long focal lengths (higher magnification) are more sensitive to poor seeing than shorter focal lengths.
Wrong, focal length has nothing to do with it. Higher magnification is more sensitive to poor seeing.
I apologise for using the word magnification here, because I was referring to an eyepiece-less telescope, using instead a camera in prime focus. Then there is no magnification defined. A camera pixel extends a certain field of view, which gets smaller as the focal length increases. So with that clarification, the statement still holds.
A longer focal length is easier to focus.
Not really. Short focal length are very critical to focus, that is true, the focus range is very short and critical. A long focal length telescope is also very difficult to focus, but for a different reason: the focus range is longer, but the sweet spot is much harder to find. If you have tried with a 12m focal length and a webcam in prime focus you know that is true (I have, see my highest magnification sunspot image referred to in the earlier post).
When counting sunspots, there are some simple rules observers use. The whole sun has be in the field of view. With gives a magnification of 60 to 80x.
So if you have a telescope with a long focal length you have to use an eyepiece that gives you an small magnification.
Leif’s Catania image violates those simple rules…. but it is interesting because you imply that sunspot observations must be done visually, and not with a camera. Somehow visual and camera observations work differently.
Leif Svalgaard (11:55:52) :
Carsten, I forgot to show the Mount Wilson drawing of your spot
ftp://howard.astro.ucla.edu/pub/obs/drawings/2004/dr040812.jpg
They show many more spots than I could count, for obvious reasons.
Many thanks for that Leif, very interesting indeed!
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (12:56:09) :
interesting because you imply that sunspot observations must be done visually, and not with a camera. Somehow visual and camera observations work differently.
Yes, sunspot counts are visual. Sunspot areas are done photographically.
I noticed that solar magnetic properties have gone a bit negative which could create a connection between the Sun’s magnetic field and the Earth’s magnetic field, letting in a bit of a hit from cosmic rays. The cosmic ray station unit at Finland http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/ seems to be picking up on that hit.
The Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory, located 120 km north of the Arctic Circle in Finland, is an independent department of the University of Oulu. The measured change in cosmic rays right now is higher than I have seen it go since I began daily monitoring of the web site.
Pamela Gray (16:05:08) :
I noticed that solar magnetic properties have gone a bit negative which could create a connection between the Sun’s magnetic field and the Earth’s magnetic field, letting in a bit of a hit from cosmic rays.
The cosmic rays [from the Galaxy, not the rare ones from the Sun] are not influenced by the connection between the Sun’s and the Earth’s magnetic fields, but only by the shape and strength of the Sun’s field.
The cosmic ray station unit at Oulu in Finland seems to be picking up on that hit.
Oulu and all the other stations show a cosmic rays flux at this solar minimum that is the same as it was on all previous minima where we have good data back to 1952. There is a very slight variation in the minimum values, which every second minimum being a little bit higher than the intervening minima, so 2008, 1986, 1964 have the same flux, slightly higher than 1996, 1976, and 1954. This small difference is well-understood having to do with the polarities of the general solar field. So, in the long run there has been no increase in the cosmic rays flux since [at least 1952]. What is a bit different is that the current minimum has lasted so long.
[snip] per request of poster – Anne
Leif, you are such as encyclopaedia. Thanks for the continued instruction. Your comment about the minimum lasting so long reminds me of what happens to a boiling kettle of water if left on a steady heat too long. While the source of heat doesn’t change, the kettle certainly does.
Leif Svalgaard: Glad to see you’re still keeping an eye this thread.
Off topic: I just threw up a post about the GISS Model E Climate Simulations, and one of the three simulations I discussed was the Model E solar forcing response. That discussion starts just before Figure 10 here.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/09/giss-model-e-climate-simulations.html
As you might recall from a post at ClimateAudit back in May, GISS uses the Lean (2000) TSI reconstruction for their Model E GCM. But there’s also another “oddity.” The output of the model seems to ramp up and reach its upper range two decades before the Lean et al TSI. Just wanted to let know because I thought you might find that point interesting. I also wanted to let you know I used data from your site to illustrate the differences between the Lean et al (2000) TSI and the current consensus about it (your “Leif” TSI data). I cited your site as the source and linked to it, of course, and I also recommended a comment you made on the ClimateAudit thread as further reading on the current thoughts about solar background.
If you have the time, take a look. If you would prefer I not use you or your data as reference, please let me know. Comments are always welcome, here or there.
Thanks.
Leif Svalgaard (07:06:37) :
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.
Well, I guessed wrong:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/forecasts/SRS/0912SRS.txt:
I. Regions with Sunspots. Locations Valid at 11/2400Z
Nmbr Location Lo Area Z LL NN Mag Type
1001 N06E14 179 0020 Bxo 03 02 Beta
Please welcome cycle 23 region 11001.
REPLY: The MDI hardly shows it at all. – Anthony
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/1024/latest.html
Bob Tisdale (17:29:59) :
I just threw up a post about the GISS Model E Climate Simulations, and one of the three simulations I discussed was the Model E solar forcing response. […] GISS uses the Lean (2000) TSI reconstruction for their Model E GCM.
[…]
GISS acknowledges the use of the Lean et al data and its problems in their report “Climate simulations for 1880–2003 with GISS modelE”. They state, “Lean et al. (2002) call into question the long-term solar irradiance changes, such as those of Lean (2000), which have been used in many climate model studies including our present simulations. The basis for questioning the previously inferred long-term changes is the realization that secular increases in cosmogenic and geomagnetic proxies of solar activity do not necessarily imply equivalent secular trends of solar irradiance.” Following that, they go on to explain their reasoning for their continued use of the erroneous TSI data set.
I find their explanation disingenuous, because since it is obviously true that “secular increases in cosmogenic and geomagnetic proxies of solar activity do not necessarily imply equivalent secular trends of solar irradiance”, the point is that those changes in the proxies didn’t happen in the first place.
But, if use of wrong data helps the model, I can see why one might want to ignore that problem.
And you are welcome to use TSI-Leif. You may enjoy a seminar I gave recently at Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory on this: http://www.leif.org/research/Seminar-LMSAL.pdf
> Nmbr Location Lo Area Z LL NN Mag Type
> 1001 N06E14 179 0020 Bxo 03 02 Beta
> Please welcome cycle 23 region 11001.
Ah, what’s old is new again. Live long and prosper.
11001 or 1001, whichever you are. 🙂
Umm, I think I saw it on a SOHO image earlier, but not now. The magnetogram is looking lame too. So much for prosper. Alas poor sunspeck, I hardly knew ye.
Leif Svalgaard (17:40:36) :
Please welcome cycle 23 region 11001.
REPLY: The MDI hardly shows it at all. – Anthony
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/1024/l
I would say not at all, And Mt. Wilson neither:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/intro.html
Kitt Peak NSO had it:
http://solis.nso.edu/vsm_fulldisk.html
The region died sometime between 17h and 20h UT. One may wonder why this Tiny Tim was elevated to an ‘active region’. Perhaps NOAA is getting nervous now after all the brouhaha and don’t want to be accused of ‘missing’ spots…
Anyway, it is now gone.
REPLY: Well if it shows up as a spot at SIDC, I may book a flight to Belgium. – Anthony
Leif: Thanks for taking a look and thanks for the okay on the data. It’s funny. I let that post sit for a week to see if anything else ocurred to me. Of course the thought waited until after I posted. I’ll be adding the following update tomorrow, early A.M.
Thanks for the seminar link as well. I’ll take a look tomorrow.
Regards.
##
UPDATE 1
As an afterthought, I revised the comparative graph of solar irradiance forcing and the Model E output of global temperature response to solar irradiance (originally shown as Figure 14) so that the slopes of the increases in both data correlated as best I could from 1880 to 1940. Refer to Figure 18. I used 4th-order poly trends as reference during the adjustments.
http://i35.tinypic.com/fod5it.jpg
Figure 18
That threw the correlation for the years after 1940 off significantly. Now it seems to display the same inconsistency as the volcanic aerosol comparison. What would cause that?
http://i36.tinypic.com/xni4id.jpg
Figure 19
##
Bob Tisdale (18:57:35) :
Refer to Figure 18. I used 4th-order poly trends as reference during the adjustments.
I wonder why you also use the wrong data, or even care.
But we getting off topic, so email me if you have further thoughts on this.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/latest/DSD.txt
NOAA gave it a go.
2008 09 11 67 12 20 1 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
So, we are still having these SC23 bubbles popping up. Why won’t this cycle give it up, the $64k question.
REPLY: Amazing, Leif didn’t think this would even merit a region, and here we have a sunspot count! – Anthony
2008 09 11 67 12 20 1 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NOAA gave it a go.
Why won’t SC23 give it up, the $64k question.
Still bubbling along 12 years later.
Leif –
I had assumed that the issue was not how many sunspot counts occured when there was a complicated sunspot – you are probably quite correct in stating that there would be differences of opinion in such a case. My assumption is whether one small sunspeck would be seen by a dedicated observer. In either case, my approach shows you don’t need the old telescope to check if such a sunspeck is indeed observable. It is.
The correct way to approach this problem is not to ask to examine a big ol’ messy sunspot, but to look at how small sunspot counts and sizes of one or two were recorded in early days. Since I don’t have access to that sort of information, I would hope that is something you could (easily) dig up. As a problem of statistics, the best way would be to observe over the last century (back to the time of the 80 mm f/14) what the observed mimimal sunspot size was, and the correlation among many observers worldwide at many stations. This would give you an estimate of what the probability was of actually missing it.
If you have such a database, I would be happy to attempt to calculate the probability.
Looking at the Solar Cycle 24 site, and examing the trend charts there.
–
http://www.solarcycle24.com/
Last 3 months sunspot and Planetary A index graphic.
06/16 to 06/22 , 07/19 to 07/21 and 09/11 are the sunspot activiites.
Now look at the Last 3 months solar wind. Those 3 sunspot activites all occured on the downslope of solar wind velocities, including our 08/21 sunspeck.
Probably just me thinking this is something significant, but is this an expected behavior?
The image in my mind is the solar wind dies down, and up pops a remnant bubble, if one is available.
Leif Svalgaard (17:40:36) :
Leif Svalgaard (07:06:37) :
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.
Well, I guessed wrong:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/forecasts/SRS/0912SRS.txt:
I. Regions with Sunspots. Locations Valid at 11/2400Z
Nmbr Location Lo Area Z LL NN Mag Type
1001 N06E14 179 0020 Bxo 03 02 Beta
Please welcome cycle 23 region 11001.
REPLY: The MDI hardly shows it at all. – Anthony
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/1024/latest.html
As this is a cycle 23 spot it obviously contributes to pushing the solar minimum further into the future (compared to before this spot was seen). By how much I wonder?