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.
Shouldn’t Cataina be also using a bad pixel or defect map?
REPLY: Huh??? Explain
Glenn (20:33:01) :
More than a thousand year high:
“The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional — the last period of similar magnitude occurred over 8,000 years ago.
They get this erroneous result because the reconstruction of the sunspot number from the 14C flux is based on the systematically too low past sunspot numbers.
The cosmic ray flux gives a better picture. The best data comes from Juerg Beer and his group. Here is what they [K.G. McCracken, J. Beer & F.B. McDonald] say [page 89-90] in:
http://www.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/surf/publikationen/2005_the_long
“Since 850 AD the 22-year average cosmic-ray intensity (as measured by the 10Be concentration) has returned repeatedly to low values [meaning high solar activity] that are similar to those of
the present epoch (i.e. since 1950). Thus the 10Be concentration at the South Pole in Figure 4 exhibits minima within ±2% of 3.00 × 104 atoms/g for the 22-year averages centred on 940, 1132, 1220, 1360, 1740, and 1958 AD. This remarkable result indicates that the modulation process, and by inference, the properties
of the heliospheric magnetic field, were similar during many of the periods of high solar activity between 850 and 1958. This may indicate that the interplanetary magnetic field near Earth is presently near an asymptotic value that it has approached on five previous occasions in the past 1150 years.”
The problem is that it is easy to cite articles in support of this or that [and you can always find some that will support any point of view you choose]. but if you don’t know the details of the calculations and are not intimately familiar with the issues, it is easy to be led astray by selecting articles supporting your own view, without due regard for the wider issues and the full breadth of the evidence.
I have already referred to the rebuttal of the ‘all-time-high’ by Mueschler et al., See, e.g. Nature 436, E3-E4 (28 July 2005) | doi:10.1038/nature04045;
Climate: How unusual is today’s solar activity?
Raimund Muescheler, Fortunat Joos, Simon A. Mueller & Ian Snowball.
or Muescheler et all [Quaternary Science Reviews vol 26, p.82, 2007]:
The tree-ring 14C record and 10Be from Antarctica indicate that recent solar activity is high but not exceptional with respect to the last 1000 yr.
Although I normally don’t defer to authority I would like to remind people that Frank McDonald is one of the foremost experts on cosmic rays. http://www.ipst.umd.edu/Faculty/mcdonald.htm
This evening I went to the Mt. Wilson observatory web page http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/intro.html and went to the sun spot records. I found that with their modern equipment that they had not recorded a sun spot in 56 days. This would put their streak at #3 on the number of days without sun spots list. Cantaina must have better equipment. Having such variability in the reporting makes any historical view more difficult, if not impossible.
hyonmin (21:55:24) :
This evening I went to the Mt. Wilson observatory web page http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/intro.html and went to the sun spot records. I found that with their modern equipment that they had not recorded a sun spot in 56 days.
Mt. Wilson’s equipment is from 1912 [as it says on their webpage]
Fun to look at http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/150_scr0.html
Cantaina must have better equipment.
Or. more likely, just better seeing that day.
Having such variability in the reporting makes any historical view more difficult, if not impossible.
No, we just have to calibrate the record correctly. And this can be done.
Roger Carr (21:00:02) :
http://www.sillybooks.net/books/beetle_spots/beetle_spots.htmlApproved by my Granddaughter no 3.
Robert Bateman (21:02:33) :
Shouldn’t Cataina be also using a bad pixel or defect map?
How many more times must I say this: the sunspot drawings are made visually, not from photographs of CCD pixel maps.
I’m beginning to think that the ‘sapiens’ bit in our species designation: home sapiens is perhaps overstated.
hyonmin: Mt. Wilson is the premier site for seeing conditions on the West Coast. 1/2 arc second is a cut above even if it doesn’t happen all the time. If they didn’t see it, it’s probably because it wasn’t there when they looked.
Mt Wilson Obs Astronomical Forecast:
http://cleardarksky.com/c/MtWilsonOBCAkey.html?1
The following paper states small changes in solar activity have a profound affect on earth’s climate with respect to hurricanes. Why then wouldn’t it follow that other aspects of earth’s climate system are also dependent on [small] changes in solar activity?
http://climaterealist.blogspot.com/2008/09/new-paper-us-hurricane-counts-are.html
The Abstract states:
The authors report on a finding that annual U.S hurricane counts are significantly related to solar activity. The relationship results from fewer intense tropical cyclones over the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico when sunspot numbers are high. The finding is in accord with the heat-engine theory of hurricanes that predicts a reduction in the maximum potential intensity with
a warming in the layer near the top of the hurricane. An active sun warms the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere through ozone absorption of additional ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Since the dissipation of the hurricane’s energy occurs through ocean mixing and atmospheric transport, tropical cyclones can act to amplify the effect of relatively small changes in the sun’s output thereby appreciably altering the climate. Results have implications for life and property throughout the Caribbean, Mexico, and portions of the United States.
Defect Map: Those pixels that do not respond in kind with the others:
A defect map is an image with the same dimensions as the image sensor that contains a code for each pixel used during calibration to correct defective pixels in the image.
Used in both professional imaging (HST, GALEX, SDSS, etc) and recently by a large majoity of astroimagers.
Leif Svalgaard’s posts are enlightening. Aside from their inherent value, they also validate that old adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Until his postings I had believed that there was some unquestioned historical method of counting sunspots we had but to follow to align our present counting with that of the past; and therefore to be able to create an unchallenged number line on which to base theory and opinion.
Leif provided material to show this is not so, and in addition that there are other and perhaps more relevant measurements of the sun’s activity.
Humbling and valuable knowledge to be carried forward.
Owe you, Leif.
The answer is obvious.
We should adjust the historical sunspot record with some algorithm on a monthly basis so that the history continues to change to match our current technology.
And for goodness sake, make sure we adjust for the urban sunspot effect.
Perhaps there should be two standards.
A “sunspot” is defined by visibility. We still have better equipment, but if it is visible, a case can be made that it is something that could have been picked up on in the good old days.
Perhaps there needs to be a second category for which we have only a sparse record for disturbances that are detected in other ways, but are ot visible. This would make the sunspot record more homogenous while still keeping a record of other disturbances.
The 2nd method is preferrable: We should continue to observe the sunspots in an unbroken mannerThere is nothing wrong with using modern imaging to get a higher resolution on the Sun, but it will take centuries to reap the full benefit.
That’s what makes the older method so valuable: It’s the only thing we have that can tell us where we are in the long-term status of solar cycles
Right now, how the spots are weighted is not as important as whether spots are visible or not..
So, the question is: Where are we: 3 days and counting or 56 days and counting?
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/pickoftheweek/magcomp.mpg
Found this on SolarCycle24 site.
Compare the two movies of magnetograms of the sun from 2003 and early sep 2008.
The 2008 scene is one of poor signal to noise ratio, as there isn’t a whole lot of signal. Little Tiny Tims popping up and down in as sea of background noise.
Like to see those psf’s.
Darn forum keeps trashing my posts with links. Arggghhh.
If a 2nd one pops up later, you know why.
sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/pickoftheweek/magcomp.mpg
Magnetogram video of 2003 vs 2008.
The current scene is one of Tiny Tims coming and going in a sea of background noise.
Signal to Noise ratio is very low.
like to see the psf’s on these things.
It might be helpful if that magnetometer were to go on an imaging binge and get about 25 images or more to put through a drizzle algorhythm to get rid of the background noise or at least drive it below the visibility threshold.
Hey, if the signal is that low, do a Solar Deep Field. Eh?
Leif wrote:
MY point was that if a quiet sun causes global cooling, it is proof that the solar-magnetic effect is powerful (or the effect of solar activity on total luminescence has been WAY underestimated) and that these effects (being omitted from the IPCC models) are being misattributed to CO2, proving that your ASSUMPTION of AGW is wrong. THAT was my objection to your statement. You can’t continue to assume AGW in the face of solar cooling. It has been disproved. Hence no “double whammy.”
Obviously this is important. The warming alarmists want to maintain exactly what you are saying: that any quiet-sun induced cooling will only temporarily suppress AGW. In fact it will disprove AGW.
As for whether we ought to expect that a quiet sun WILL cool the earth, the evidence seems to be overwhelming. As arrayed in Fred Singer’s book, there are hundreds of studies of the geologic record that find a high degree of correlation between GCR isotope signatures (a proxy for solar activity) and temperature signatures, covering at this point hundreds of thousands of years. That can’t be coincidence, and the causality can only go one way.
Against this body of evidence, you offer an anecdote:
In other words, there was a period of fairly high solar activity before the Maunder Minimum commenced in 1645. But that doesn’t even begin to puncture the correlation between the Maunder Minimum and the very cold temperatures that accompanied it, never mind cast doubt on the many thousands of years of correlation between solar activity and temperature.
Our predictive models should be based on the full body of evidence and that is what the IPCC refuses to do. They are fully aware of the predictive value of solar activity for global temperature change and they omit it anyway, knowing full well that the explanatory value of this omitted variable will get misattributed to CO2. That scientific fraud needs to be exposed.
I find it amazing that even if nature PROVES AGW to be a fraud by sending us a quiet sun followed by cool temperatures, you say that you will still be warning about the dangers of CO2, and saying we had better do something about it or we will get a double whammy. I appreciate your saying that you don’t mean to be taking sides on the AGW debate, but maybe you should do some more thinking through, because I believe you actually are taking a very strong alarmist position, if even an event that would disprove AGW would leave you firmly in the “do something about CO2” camp.
Leif Svalgaard:
He did not put the words in my mouth, he omitted to mention that we were discussing a hypothetical case, and I have pointed that out often enough.
When will scientists stop falling for this one. Any “hypothetical case” or “theoretical possibility” discussed with a journalist will “with a vengeance” reappear as a dead certainty to prove their agenda.
Leif-
“Be aware that this is controversial and is being met with stiff resistance from the ‘all-time high’ crowd.”
If you do what you propose will it not result in some years’ count being negative?
Leif Svalgaard (19:15:05) :
How many times must I repeat that the sunspot count is not done on the photograph or CCD image, but by vsiual inspection of the projected solar image on a white piece of paper, on whhich the drawing is made.
As should be obvious from my post, my comment was not directly related sunspot counting, but to observational procedures in general. Obviously, Catania does visual observations, according to some procedures. They also do CCD observations, ref. the given examples. I am simply pointing out that the CCD images have not been flat frame calibrated, a very basic thing.
If someone, somewhere attempts to use such CCD images for any scientific purpose, then they must be flat frame calibrated first, or else they will start registering dust blobs inside the telescope as solar features. Dead pixel elimination is also a simple thing to do.
And yes, I do realise that formal sunspot counting is visual, there is no need to repeat.
Seems to be a rock and a hard place for Planet Earth.
It’s not going to take a whole lot more to be in striking range of a Minimum at the rate these SC24 dust donuts are taking off and J.Q Public thinks our problem is Global Warming. They don’t have a clue.
So far, all I can find in archived images for SC24 spots are dust donuts on Solar Images.
Maybe somebody goofed and flatted the Halpha image with the White Light flat and vice versa. Stuff happens.
Data, man, where’s the data. Inquiring mind wants to know.
Jan 08 and April 14th according to SIDC were SC24 spot days. I’m still scratching around looking for images of them. Calgoora didn’t show any spots, and neither did UCCLE.
Robert Bateman (20:59:28) :
Ok, I see the dust donuts on the photospere image but not the chromsphere.
I believe can see a faint donut also in the Ha (chromsphere) image. The dynamic range is wider for this image, so it is harder to see the artifacts. That is actually the issue here: It is often difficult to separete real features from imaging artifacts.
Again, this is a general issue for scientific use of CCD images. It is very easy to do right given the right software and procedures. I have written such calibration software myself, to do bias, dark and flat calibration on FITS files, including hot pixel elimination.
My point is that for such images to be useful for scientific purposes observatories should calibrate the images and/or provide raw frames plus the calibration frames (“master bias,dark,flat”).
Again, sunspot counting is done visually.
Many thanks to Mr Watts, for the blog, and Mr Svalgaard. Mr Svalgaard’s patience is highly enlightening.
Alec Rawls (00:54:11) :
MY point was that if a quiet sun causes global cooling, it is proof that the solar-magnetic effect is powerful (or the effect of solar activity on total luminescence has been WAY underestimated) and that these effects (being omitted from the IPCC models) are being misattributed to CO2, proving that your ASSUMPTION of AGW is wrong. THAT was my objection to your statement. You can’t continue to assume AGW in the face of solar cooling. It has been disproved. Hence no “double whammy.”
I am amazed of the inability of people to read and understand simple English [or is it me that can’t write simple English?]. AGW is not MY assumption, it was HIS assumption. And if go by that assumption [it is always valid to follow an assumption to its logical conclusion] then the rest follows. If the assumption turns out to be wrong, so is the conclusion. But we were not discussing the validity of the assumption, only what might happen should the assumption turn out to be true.
MY point was that if a quiet sun causes global cooling, it is proof that the solar-magnetic effect is powerful
And this is circular ‘reasoning’. That we have cooling and a quiet
Sun is not proof of anything, it could be just pure coincidence.