After the August 21st sunspot debacle where SIDC reported a spot and initially NOAA didn’t, mostly due to the report from the Catania Observatory in Italy, we have another similar situation. On September 11th, a plage area developed. Here is the SOHO MDI for 1323UTC:
Find the sunspot in this image – Click for a larger image
Here is another from a couple hours later, 1622UTC :
Find the sunspot in this image – Click for a larger image
Note that in the large versions of both the above images, you’ll see a tiny black speck. That’s NOT the “sunspot” but burned out pixels on the SOHO CCD imager.
To help you locate the area of interest, here is the SOHO magnetogram for the period, as close as one is available to the above image time. It shows the disturbance with the classic N-S polarity of solar cycle 23 close to the equator:
Click for a larger image
The Catania Observatory in Italy included it on their daily sketch, as barely visible:
Click for a larger image
By contrast, the Mount Wilson Observatory in California did NOT show this on their daily drawing:
Click for larger image
The Catania photosphere image for that period did not show any disturbance:
Click for larger image
But the Catania chromosphere image did show the disturbance:
Click for a larger image
At the time our resident solar physicist Leif Svaalgard postulated and then retracted:
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.
And then a few minutes later went on to say:
Leif Svalgaard (18:35:44)
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:
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.
And Robert Bateman added:
Robert Bateman (21:45:42)
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 let’s recap:
We have a disturbance that shows up briefly, then disappears in a couple of hours, some observers call it a spot, others do not, or their time of observation (Mt. Wilson for example) was perhaps past the time of visible activity. The “spot” itself is even less pronounced than the sunspeck that was elevated to sunspot status on August 21st, yet NOAA assigns it a spot status this time, where on August 21st they did not, only doing so AFTER the SIDC 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 issue.
Now 100 + years ago would we have recorded this as a spot? Doubtful. It is most pronounced on imagery from satellite or specialized telescopes. Would the old methods such as a dark filter or projection used 100 years ago have seen this? As I pointed out before, we now have a non-homogeneous sunspot record mixing old techniques and instrumentation with new and much more sensitive instrumentation, and more coverage. Yet even with this we have disagreement between observatory reports.
How long does a sunspeck (or sunspot) have to be present before it ranks as countable? What standards are in place to ensure that observers use the same type of equipment and techniques to count spots? Is there any such standard? From the perspective of the public and laymen at large, it seems that there’s some randomness to this science process.
In my opinion, science would be better served if these observational questions and the dataset inhomogeneity is addressed.
I’m sure Leif will have some commentary to add.
And as Robert Bateman writes in comments: So, we are still having these SC23 bubbles popping up. Why won’t this cycle give it up? The $64k question.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anthony–
Thanks. I posted before having access to Lief’s remarks which adds a new perspective to the discussion, i.e., the problem is not just recent, but recent technology has advanced a “non-homogeneous” sunspot record. Not only do we have human noise added to past records, we now see what they could not see.
I not sure there exists a solution. We may be able to reconcile to some degree past records knowing what was done, but what to do with current technology which is appreciably better as regards to achieving homogeneity in the record.
We seem to be counting most “tiny tims,” which it is okay to acknowledge something is there, but should we be counting them in the official international number? Regardless of the noise of the past, these spots would certainly not have been seen or counted. I can’t even find them on the SOHO image.
I am enthusiastic about our techlogical advances, particularly with SOHO that has allowed many firsts, answered and raised questions about the sun. However, how do we employ that technology in an old system without contaminating the record?
If this little disturbance is Cycle 23, does it extend the length of SC23? Of course, 24 began a while back, but we have seen a few 23’s since.
The sun probably doesn’t care what we think.
With my experience of IR sensors, this looked immediately to me like a “bad pixel”. In fact I noted it earlier today before this story appeared!
Usually these are registered, stored and the surrounding pixels used to blend a value for it on each frame. Only a complete idiot would think it was a sun spot :/.
“Glenn, it is become tedious to keep reminding you that just hunting around on the Internet for papers that support your beliefs is not very fruitful. The paper you just cited is from 2000 and must therefore be based on either Hoyt/Schatten’s or Lean’s old TSI reconstruction that have a much larger variation than the solar community [incl. Judith Lean, as I have repeatedly pointed out] accepts today. So, enough of this, please.”
So now you refer to a consensus of the “solar community”, and you accuse me of acting on my beliefs?? I have not seen you “repeatedly” pointing out what the scientific community accepts, but recently in another thread you
gave two references in support of your position that the Spoerer Minimum was a “warm” period, and thos papers were very much in contradiction to eachother, a fact you even acknowledged. Perhaps you shouldn’t just hunt around on the Internet for papers that support your beliefs.
From the URL of the 2000 Science paper I just cited there are many other papers listed that reference that paper. I suggest if you are going to claim that the 2000 Science paper has been discredited, that you cite some specific work in support, instead of papers such as your recent one about cherry blossoms in Japan reconstructed from old records.
“Four glacial advances occurred between anno Domini (A.D.) 1250 and 1810, coincident with solar-activity minima. Temperature declines of −3.2 ± 1.4°C and precipitation increases of ≈20% are required to produce the observed glacial responses.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/24/8937.abstract
“but you are aware that we are not in what is known as the “Modern Maximum”?
“The Modern Maximum refers to the ongoing period of relatively high solar activity that began circa 1950.
And the problem with your posts is that you often contradict yourself”
Ah, the tactic of making a big deal of typos. Very good, Leif. Throw some ad hom into it “condescending language” and avoid responding, and you have all the trimmings of a true believer. In what, I’m still not sure.
How do you count these short term spots that appear on the other side of the sun?
Leif, Thanks for the “all-time high” report, based on C14 data and not sunspot count:
“The research team had already in 2003 found evidence that the Sun is more active now than in the previous 1000 years. A new data set has allowed them to extend the length of the studied period of time to 11,400 years, so that the whole length of time since the last ice age could be covered. This study showed that the current episode of high solar activity since about the year 1940 is unique within the last 8000 years. This means that the Sun has produced more sunspots, but also more flares and eruptions, which eject huge gas clouds into space, than in the past. The origin and energy source of all these phenomena is the Sun’s magnetic field.”
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20041028/
wattsupwiththat (09:47:07)
“Leif, What’s to stop you from going through the record and coming up with a procedure to correct this mess and publishing it?”
With updated observation/recording techniques there is almost always a need to re-evaluate and correct previous results from out-dated equipment. As you are an advocate for doing this for sunspot measurement and numbering, I assume there won’t be the usual caffufle when temperature records are also re-evaluated and corrected for much the same reason?
Glenn (11:06:10) :
you are going to claim that the 2000 Science paper has been discredited, that you cite some specific work in support
It is very rare that papers in this are ‘discredited’. They are just blissfully forgotten.
Ah, the tactic of making a big deal of typos. Very good, Leif. Throw some ad hom into it “condescending language” and avoid responding
I have responded to you in great detail in the ‘sunspecks’ thread, and I suggest that you take the discussion there instead of diluting this thread, which is about “what passes for a sunspot these days”.
Dr. Svalgaard,
Given that your estimate for solar cycle 24 maximum is in the mid-70’s, how would that compare to a revised solar sunspot record? A cursory look at the record seems to indicate to me that a cycle 24 max of 75 would be the lowest since the Dalton minimum.
Kim
Please correct me if this is wrong, but I thought that solar cycle predictions were made so that electronics sensitive to solar activity (e.g. satellites) would know what kind of near-future activity to expect from the sun and be properly prepared for it. Something like more shielding if the cycle is supposed to be active, etc. I’m going on memory here of something I read.
IF that’s the case, then if they’re going to start counting these little fleas, won’t that arbitrarily increase the “strength” of the next cycle? Where the sunspot count might look high on paper, but the actual solar activity might be far lower since they’re now counting specks they weren’t counting before?
Somewhere I read that there’s a reason that NOAA/NASA/somebody has to issue a prediction for the next cycle. I would be interested to read a more detailed explanation of that, especially if I’m totally off-base on all this.
Glenn (11:23:31) :
Leif, Thanks for the “all-time high” report, based on C14 data and not sunspot count
You only see one side of things [the side you like]. The Solanki et al. paper is effectively rebutted here:
Nature 436, E3-E4 (28 July 2005) | doi:10.1038/nature04045; Published online 27 July 2005
How unusual is today’s solar activity?
Raimund Muscheler, Fortunat Joos, Simon A. Müller & Ian Snowball
“To put global warming into context requires knowledge about past changes in solar activity and the role of the Sun in climate change. Solanki et al. propose that solar activity during recent decades was exceptionally high compared with that over the preceding 8,000 years. However, our extended analysis of the radiocarbon record reveals several periods during past centuries in which the strength of the magnetic field in the solar wind was similar to, or even higher than, that of today.”
I show one of their Figures at http://www.leif.org/14C.png so you don’t have to pay $30. Panel a shows [dark blue] solar activity deduced from 14C. It was around 1600 and 1780 as high or higher than today.
This is also shown well by the 10Be data of Beer et al. [that I have referred to]. What you are missing is that this is an active research area and the various papers are ‘claims’ and ‘proposals’ and ‘suggestions’. But, please, this will be my last exchange with you here. Continue over in ‘sunspecks’ if you must.
It’s like playing where’s waldo.
How can a simple spot create so much controversy, for the NOAA to change their stance on this is a bit strange. I read earlier an explanation for the “update” to their records but it strikes me as a bit political.
Can they really be that concerned about the sun breaking a calm record?
I don’t know the methods used in the past or the number of solar observations per day, but this is far too small to be easily detected. I may be wrong but on the old (instrument limited sunspot scale) I put my $5 on – no spot.
Leif, I don’t see why I am “diluting” this thread. It seems you are having a problem with my habit of referencing scientific articles, and maybe you would like them to be out of view?
Here’s another more recent paper (2007) which has an interesting graph showing Modern Maximum, see Figure 4:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.0385v1.pdf
Sure looks to me like these authors are not with your claimed consensus of
what the solar community accepts, solar activity for the last thousand years on that chart is the highest during the last hundred or so years. Sorry to bust your bubble, but this matches generally the MWP, LIA and current conditions of the last couple hundred years.
I show one of their Figures at http://www.leif.org/14C.png
should have been: http://www.leif.org/research/14C.png
It’s interesting how so much of what is assumed to be hard science turns out to be greatly influenced by human whims, bias and manipulation.
“Where has all the science gone…long time passing…”
Are the original sunspot drawings available electronically?
It would seem that we’d all be better off using areal-extent-of-spot instead of number-of-spots anyway, right?
Exactly like the hurricaine analysis, it isn’t the number-of-landfalls that’s the main interest.
Kim Mackey (11:43:56) :
Given that your estimate for solar cycle 24 maximum is in the mid-70’s, how would that compare to a revised solar sunspot record? A cursory look at the record seems to indicate to me that a cycle 24 max of 75 would be the lowest since the Dalton minimum.
Our solar cycle prediction paper http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf notes that SC24 may be the smallest in the past 100 years. The sunspot number during the Dalton minimum is very uncertain, and could be off by a factor of two, so who is to say?
See slide 6 of Wolf’s adjustements.
Note the very large changes in the Wolf number between 1800-1825 as Wolf struggled to interpret the [very few[ observations back then. The even tried to use counts of aurorae as a proxy.
I assume that there is some sort of internationl scientific body for solar scientists and that this body has published detailed written standards setting forth what is and is not a sunspot. Am I incorrect?
Brian in AK (12:28:57) :
It’s interesting how so much of what is assumed to be hard science turns out to be greatly influenced by human whims, bias and manipulation.
It has always been like that when it comes to what you could call “the frontier” of science. There is ‘hard science’ of which there is no discussion [general relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution, plate tectonics, stellar structure, orbital mechanics, material sciences, etc] , but at the fringe [or frontier] where science advances, you will see the usual bickering. Scientists are people too.
To much science not enough common sense, how long have they been counting specks for spots, 10, 20, 50 years, how long have they used these filters, if the sun has been more active recently does this mean more specks or just larger spots or groups of spots. This is totally ridiculous, I am sure there are enough dedicated amateur observers that have good observational records using low tech equipment which can be fairly compared with all historical observations.
Rob (13:31:42) :
how long have they been counting specks for spots, 10, 20, 50 years
Since 1893.
I am sure there are enough dedicated amateur observers that have good observational records using low tech equipment which can be fairly compared with all historical observations.
There are, in fact, very active amateur groups that do this [and well].
http://www.vds-sonne.de/gem/res/dia.html#renetz
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Engwelcome.html
http://www.britastro.org/solar/newsletters/May2008.pdf
and many more.
brazil84 (13:00:31) :
I assume that there is some sort of internationl scientific body for solar scientists and that this body has published detailed written standards setting forth what is and is not a sunspot. Am I incorrect?
Yes, to a point. SIDC is supposed to be that body charged with sunspot reporting. But the IAU [International Astronomical Union, http://www.iau.org/ ] which is the closest thing you can get to an ‘overarching’ organization [does naming of planets and features on them, for example] does not run the SIDC.
There is nothing really wrong with the way this is done if we could only get the historical record straightened out, which is in the works. Fixing the record is something that the community does not take lightly. Scientists are VERY, VERY conservative. We cannot have some lone ranger running about changing things nilly willy 🙂
What is the problem with having two sets of data?
1.) corresponding to the methods of mid 19th century
2.) modern camera techniques to be consistenmtly applied from now forward.
or is that too simple.
It si not ideal because of diiferent techniques over the 200yrs or so… but it would be an improvement and it would clarify things a bit
Denis Hopkins (14:09:12) :
What is the problem with having two sets of data?
1.) corresponding to the methods of mid 19th century
2.) modern camera techniques to be consistenmtly applied from now forward.
We have modern indices of solar activity [f10.7, MgII, and others]. The only reason to have the sunspot number is because of the desire to continue the historical record.