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.
‘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?’
Given the rarity of the sunspecks and thier tendency to vanish in a hurry, it would be safe to say that the end of this lull is nowhere in sight.
Me thinks wishful thinking and bad predictions are causing sun watchers to change the way they see things. If these prediction folks can find even the tiniest of sunspots from old cycle 23, they can justify numbering tiny cycle 24 spots, thus hopefully in their minds leading to statements such as this, “Cycle 24 has begun on time, just as we predicted.”
It is the old saw about seeing through rose colored glasses. You don’t even know you have them on. We all wear them and they color what we see, hear, feel, and think. No one is immune to the influence of their rose colored glasses. That is why people say that teachers are to blame, mothers are to blame, fathers are to blame, the government is to blame, Hansen is to blame, CO2 is to blame, oil companies are to blame, greenies are to blame, left wing loonies are to blame, right wing neocons are to blame, or this: there is oil under ground everywhere we just haven’t found it yet, Bush caused our current mess, congress caused our current mess, the icecap is melting, my fanny is cold…
WAIT!!! My fanny IS cold!
Brendan (22:16:58) :
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.
Until Wolfer argued that the smallest spots [pores] should be counted, they were deliberately not counted at all. So early systematic data on such small spots do not exist.
Robert Bateman (23:20:43) :
The image in my mind is the solar wind dies down, and up pops a remnant bubble, if one is available.
No, it is not that simple and direct.
The image in my mind is the solar wind dies down, and up pops a remnant bubble, if one is available.
‘No, it is not that simple and direct.’
Do you have an alternate description of why these spots(sunspecks) appear on the downslope of the solar winds ( from the co-rotatiing coronal hole or otherwise) ?
I don’t have the data to look back further than the 3 month graphs to check when this started, or if it always works like that.
I’m thinking hard about another natural occurence that behaves the same way as these sunspecks. It’s easy to imagine a normal sunspot lasting a lot longer than mere hours if there’s a whole stream of energy behind it Like a flood, they slowly build, reach a peak, subside and finally disappear. But what of these poor sunspecks, here at lunch and gone by dinner. Does that co-rotating coronal hole show any sign of differential rotation? i.e. – is it being slowly dragged about faster at the center than the north & south terminations?
Anthony,
Isn’t this Ronald Van der Linden, the known warmist, the one who went to Theordore Landscheidt home in 2004 and asked his widow to give him Theo’s documents and studies? Now they are lost for future generations of astrophysicists.
Say, WHAT?
Please explicate.
Eduardo (21:37:50) :
Theodore Landscheidt home in 2004 and asked his widow to give him Theo’s documents and studies? Now they are lost for future generations of astrophysicists.
And good riddance. They were junk anyway.
Robert Bateman (18:38:19) :
graphs to check when this started, or if it always works like that.
First, from a few cases you cannot conclude anything general. Second, if anything, the mechanism works the reverse: A sunspot pooping up in the middle of a coronal hole will cause the hole to die and the solar wind to calm, rather than the declining solar wind causing the spot to pop up. But this only works with large spots, not with the Tiny Tims; they have no real effect on anything.
Robert Bateman (20:04:08) :
Does that co-rotating coronal hole show any sign of differential rotation? i.e. – is it being slowly dragged about faster at the center than the north & south terminations?
Coronal holes show almost rigid rotation. There is some shearing off at the pole-most extremes, but the hole quickly reforms in the same place such as to maintain the rigid [non-differential] rotation.
Is there a NASA mission which will clean that up? Solar Pooper Scooper I?
‘First, from a few cases you cannot conclude anything general. Second, if anything, the mechanism works the reverse: A sunspot pooping up in the middle of a coronal hole will cause the hole to die and the solar wind to calm, rather than the declining solar wind causing the spot to pop up. But this only works with large spots, not with the Tiny Tims; they have no real effect on anything.’
I could easily conclude that the last 4 cases are what is going on right now.
And if sunspots are caused by a winding and the coronal hole just keeps reforming there isn’t a whole lot of magnetic winding going on.
That’s all we have right now, Tiny Tims (I like that!) popping up on the wane of cyclic solar winds and as persistent equatorial coronal hole. Why? I believe if we understood why that is all that is going on right now we would also then understand why the Sun is going into this sleep state.
What’s the point?
If we don’t know why the Sun goes into these lulls, then all we have are the models that can only predict cycles that don’t end in sleep states.
Let me ask you a simple question: Do you find this lull to be interesting or not?
Jeff Alberts (07:59:33) :
Is there a NASA mission which will clean that up? Solar Pooper Scooper I?
Funding is a bit tight right now, and NASA doesn’t really have good access to space anymore, but maybe the Russians will help.
[…] came out with their monthly report on September 1st. See my report about that event here and the follow up email I got from SIDC when I questioned the […]
Robert Bateman (08:01:33) :
Let me ask you a simple question: Do you find this lull to be interesting or not?
I find it very interesting because it shows us a side of the Sun that we have not seen for some time and give us the ability to ‘calibrate’ both instruments and theories, but in the long run, this is nothing special. There was a similar lull ~100 years ago, and even deeper ones further back, although the actual ‘depth’ of the earlier lulls may be overestimated.
And good riddance. They were junk anyway.
You mean it’s true?
evanjones (10:07:19) :
And good riddance. They were junk anyway.
You mean it’s true?
No, I haven’t heard of any such thing, but even if it were true, it would not be such a devastating loss.
REPLY: It’s the Barycentric Burglary caper. – Anthony
Da, comrade. Ve vill be cleaning of de poop.
By the numbers, this looks like 100 yrs ago, but there’s nothing about the Sun right now that says this is as low as it goes. The examination of what passes for spots is strike 1, the phenomena seen on the ground is strike 2, and strike 3 remains to be pitched.
I’ll get back to you all when I can get some previous graphs to see when the sunpots/specks started ocurring on the ebb of these intermittent solar winds.
It smacks of a process, too consistent to be ignored from my digging point of view.
Anthony,
The SIDC has just published some clarifications on how they calculate the Wolfnumber. See http://sidc.oma.be/news/106/sunspotnumberclarified.pdf
For our annual gathering of the Belgian Solar Section on 08 Nov 08, we’ll have a SIDC solar physicist (Dr. Petra Van Lommel) giving a 30-45 min talk on “Everything you wanted to know about the Wolfnumber”. We are even invited to ask questions in advance as to better respond to the audience. I’ll ask to apply the methodology on the activity of the last few months, and about the comparability with older Wolfnumbers (methodology, some of Leif’s remarks on calibration,…)
Hello,
With great respect (and I mean that), there are some serious misconceptions about the SIDC sunspot record in some of the comments here. The sunspot count is nowadays made by exactly the same observational techniques as in former years (I know, because I am one of the observers). In fact, at least one observing station is still using the very same telescope and eyepiece that it used back in 1848. There is, therefore, no question of “high-tech” detection of sunspots that formerly went undetected. The data is still collected by visual observers using mainly small telescopes of similar design and quality to those available 150+ years ago. In any case, sunspot detection does not, in practice, require particularly high-quality equipment.
It is, however, true that modern observers count all spots, however small, whereas in the very early days, observers tended to ignore tiny pores (note that it wasn’t that they couldn’t see them, merely that they decided not to include them). This has been allowed for in subsequent counts by applying an adjustment factor (the constant is in fact 0.6). In addition, every individual observer has his own constant. This has ensured that the series of data IS entirely homeogeneous. In fact, that is precisely the enormous advantage of the International (formerly Zurich) Sunspot Number – it provides the longest continuous record of sunspot activity that we have. And before someone says “Oh, how do we know the adjustment factor is correct?”, let me gently point out that there is a virtually continuous daily photographic record going to the 1870s, so it’s easy to check whether the figures are consistent. We also have at least one long series of visual observations (that of Richard Carrington, compiled during the 1850s and 1860s) which includes detailed drawings and full positional data. It is, I’m afraid, completely incorrect to assert that the record is untrustworthy. Of course, mistakes in individual reports are bound to occur from time to time, as in any scientific endeavour, but there is absolutely no reason to think that the data produced by SIDC is in any way inconsistent, untrustworthy or is not homogeneous. Anyone interesting in reading the science on this, as opposed to internet chatter, might like to consult the short and readable introduction to Waldmeier’s authoritative monograph ‘The Sunspot Activity in the Years 1610-1960’ (Zurich, 1961).
I hope this is of some help.