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.
Terry Ward (03:43:17) :
If you do what you propose will it not result in some years’ count being negative?
Not if the correction is a multiplier, as in new = 1.5 * old.
Allan M (03:21:13) :
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.
I do not think Stuart Clark was setting a trap or something like that for me to fall into. He just sees the world through his own green-colored glasses, which is fine with me. What I did learn from that experience is to insist on seeing the piece first, before it is published, and that has worked fine since.
How unusual is this, and what are the consequences for weather here on earth?
Michael (08:09:08) :
How unusual is this, and what are the consequences for weather here on earth?
It depends on the time scale. The Sun is now where it was 100 years ago, and 200 years ago, so on that scale, it is just business as usual. On a time scale of a human life, the quiet sun is something we have not seen. Nobody knows if it has any consequences for weather/climate. My personal opinion is that does not have a significant effect, because the amount of variation is still very, very small [one in a thousand] compared to the total output of the Sun.
Leif Svalgaard (21:39:59)
“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.”
Worthless condescending rhetoric. But I expect that would be similar to what the paper you claim has been “effectively refuted” may think. In fact, look below.
“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.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7050/full/nature04046.html
“Climate: How unusual is today’s solar activity? (reply)
Muscheler et al.1 claim that the solar activity affecting cosmic rays was much higher in the past than we deduced from 14C measurements. However, this claim is based on a problematic normalization and is in conflict with independent results, such as the Ti activity in meteorites and the 10Be concentration in ice cores.”
Glenn (08:44:09) :
Worthless condescending rhetoric. But I expect that would be similar to what the paper you claim has been “effectively refuted” may think. […] In fact, look below[…] However, this claim is based on a problematic normalization and is in conflict with independent results, such as the Ti activity in meteorites and the 10Be concentration in ice cores.”
It was to be expected that the authors being rebutted would respond as they did. What is symptomatic for the selective quoting that you do is that in the rebuttal of the rebuttal it is claimed that 10Be also shows that the Sun is at an ‘all-time-high’, and this in spite of I just showed you what the 10Be record says. I’ll repeat that:
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 44Ti data is very uncertain. The half-life of 44Ti is poorly known with a large spread ranging from 46.4 to 66.6 years, and the 44Ti data only goes to 1883. The method works by analyzing meteorites that have been seen to fall so we know the exact date of their fall. While in space, 44Ti is formed in the meteorite by bombardment by cosmic rays. That stops when the meteorite falls to Earth. If we measure how much 44Ti is left right now and we know the time since the meteorite fell and the half-life of 44Ti we can say something about the amount of 44Ti that was in the meteorite prior to the fall and hence something about the intensity of cosmic rays at the time. But as I said, that data only goes back to 1883 so says nothing about the last 1000 years.
Again, you do not know enough about all of this to do anything but selective quoting from papers you do not understand. A little knowledge is dangerous if it is combined with a combative nature. But there is a lot to learn and you would benefit from beginning that learning process right now. It is fun to learn things, it is fun to learn how things hang together, it can be deeply satisfying to understand a subject and to be able to pass the various claims through the sieve of understanding and see which hold up.
[…] reader Tatyana has alerted me to a blog post on the controversy over the “sunspeck” that briefly appeared last week. I had seen the event remarked at Space Weather, a site that […]
‘On a time scale of a human life, the quiet sun is something we have not seen. Nobody knows if it has any consequences for weather/climate. My personal opinion is that does not have a significant effect, because the amount of variation is still very, very small [one in a thousand] compared to the total output of the Sun.’
I believe it does have consequences. The weather records for my area only go back to 1850’s. I have been paying particular attention to our local newpaper that depicts a climate very different in key areas from where it is now in the clips of 100 yrs and 150 yrs ago.
People have forgotten the very hard & bitter winters that existed from the time of Lewis & Clark Exp. through the 1840’s.
‘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”).’
I can tell you that the effect of using an out-of-date or wrong flat can put a bright spot on an image, I’ve done that. I’m still looking around for some ccd images that show the SC24 spots
of this year. Not having any luck so far, I might add.
Still no comment on this article?
http://climaterealist.blogspot.com/2008/09/new-paper-us-hurricane-counts-are.html
on 44Ti: some more falls have been ‘unearthed’ and the record may now extend back some 240 years, still not the 1000 years in question. The further back the 44Ti record goes, the greater influence has the uncertain value of the half-life of 44Ti. The discussion is not whether solar activity in the middle 20th century was high [it was], but whether that activity is unprecedented in the last few millennia [it is not].
“the amount of variation is still very, very small [one in a thousand] compared to the total output of the Sun.”
Yes, solar radiation can vary with solar cycles by over 1.5 w/m2, which is around a thousanth of a “constant” of 1366 w/m2. No sunspots, low solar radiation. Lots of sunspots, large cycles, high solar radiation. Sunspots increased significantly from 1930 to 1960, dropped till 1975, rose till 1990 then levelled off to the present. Take a hint.
http://www.nwra-az.com/spawx/ssne-year.html
Here’s an example of a relative sunspot and F10.7 count that goes negative. I believe it is relatively negative because the counts that we are getting now haven’t been seen since the last cycle that approached a zero during it’s minima (SC14 and earlier).
Robert Bateman (10:02:18) :
I believe it does have consequences. The weather records for my area only go back to 1850’s. I have been paying particular attention to our local newpaper that depicts a climate very different in key areas from where it is now in the clips of 100 yrs and 150 yrs ago.
People have forgotten the very hard & bitter winters that existed from the time of Lewis & Clark Exp. through the 1840’s.
Solar activity 1840-1880 was no different from what is has been 1980-present. See e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/SH13A-1109-F2007.pdf [page 12] It all hangs on the correct calibration of the sunspot record. I’m not claiming that my reconstruction is correct. What I’m saying is that the data we have and the understanding of the processes that connect the solar and geomagnetic data are consistent with the suggested recalibration of the sunspot record, while being inconsistent with both the Zurich [SIDC] series and the Hoyt/Schatten group sunspot number series, which, BTW are mutually inconsistent as well.
DR (10:08:56) :
Still no comment on this article?
http://climaterealist.blogspot.com/2008/09/new-paper-us-hurricane-counts-are.html
I haven’t read the paper yet [not published yet], so can’t comment. But I seem to recall that in the past people have claimed no such relationship, so we shall see.
Glenn (10:13:33) :
Sunspots increased significantly from 1930 to 1960, dropped till 1975, rose till 1990 then levelled off to the present. Take a hint.
Science does not operate on hints.
Leif, take a look at sunspot increase since 1900 in figure 4 of your cite.
http://www.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/surf/publikationen/2005_the_long
You are well aware of the fluctuation in TSI during solar cycles. When there are no cycles or they are very small with few sunspots, TSI will be low. Large cycles, with high sunspot count, high TSI. Sunspot numbers in that graph went from around 50 in 1900 to around 150 in 2000. In other words, more sunspots, more heat. There is a strong correlation with sunspot/cycle intensity pattern and global temperature pattern in the last hundred years.
The claim that the increase in TSI (which I haven’t seen to be denied by anyone) is not significant enough to account for even a substantial percentage of the increasing temperatures is just speculation.
Robert Bateman (10:14:00) :
http://www.nwra-az.com/spawx/ssne-year.html
Here’s an example of a relative sunspot and F10.7 count that goes negative.
It is negative because it is a calculated value and it simply means that their conversion formula is not correct. It becomes non-linear for small sunspot numbers because the Wolf formula R = 10*G + S simply does not work for very low solar activity if one insists on counting every spot no matter how small – remember the formula was based on the assumption/observation that an average group has about 10 spots. Wolf thought that the smallest spots should not be counted. And if you do anyway, the constant ’10’ should be different, depending on the number of spots in the group. In other words: it is silly to assign a sunspot number of 11 to one small pore. If one insists on doing so, you end up with the negative numbers shown on the plot.
Glenn (10:43:09) :
When there are no cycles or they are very small with few sunspots, TSI will be low. Large cycles, with high sunspot count, high TSI
The issue is not low/high, but how much. For a small cycle, the cycle average TSI is 1365.8 W/m2, for a large cycle TSI is 1366.2, for a difference of 0.4 or less than 0.03%. That is not a lot of heat. In fact it is easy to calculate how much that will increase the temperature since dS/S = 4 dT/T, so a dS/S of 0.03% is a change of T, i.e. dT/T of 0.03/4 = 0.0075%= 100*0.0075*300(degrees Kelvin) = 0.02 degrees.
There is a strong correlation with sunspot/cycle intensity pattern and global temperature pattern in the last hundred years.
Since solar activity 1840-188 was comparable to that of 1980-present, temperatures should be comparable too. Cherry-picking just the last 100 years is not a compelling strategy.
The claim that the increase in TSI (which I haven’t seen to be denied by anyone) is not significant enough to account for even a substantial percentage of the increasing temperatures is just speculation.
I just calculated for you what the temperature change should be. It is your choice to consider 0.02 degrees to be significant. I wouldn’t base public policy and tax-dollars on that.
Back when Jack Eddy [1976 or so] called attention to the Maunder Minimum and noted that it coincided with the LIA, it was thought [based on Abbot’s measurements 1913-1956] that the change in ‘the solar constant’ between the Maunder Minimum and now was of the order of 1.5% or 50 times larger than we now know that is, so by the same calculation we get dT/T of 50*0.03/4 = 50*0.02 degrees = 1 degree, which is about what it is. Eddy later recognized that his suggestion [MM -> LIA] had been observationally refuted, e.g. as he acknowledged in his Dinner talk “Tales of the Sun and Climate” at the SORCE 2003 meeting http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2003ScienceMeeting/Dec03ScienceMeeting.html
Unfortunately, the [now unsupported] MM and LIA link has caught the public’s eye [and yours, it seems] and like a zombie cannot be beaten down and put to rest.
moderator: Since solar activity 1840-188 was comparable to that of 1980-present,
should be
Since solar activity 1840-1880 was comparable to that of 1980-present,
The trouble, as Leif has grown old trying to explain to me, is that there is no known manifestation of change in the sun which can account for the wide changes in global climate. If there is a mechanism to magnify some effect of the sun to account for the changes in climate, it is not presently known, and Leif believes in explicatory mechanisms, for some occult reason.
============================================
kim (11:24:33) :
If there is a mechanism to magnify some effect of the sun to account for the changes in climate, it is not presently known, and Leif believes in explicatory mechanisms, for some occult reason.
Kim, it is not just that; it is also that the correlations are not all that hot, e.g. as I pointed out in the previous comment:
Glenn said: There is a strong correlation with sunspot/cycle intensity pattern and global temperature pattern in the last hundred years.
Since solar activity 1840-1880 was comparable to that of 1980-present, temperatures should be comparable too, if there is such a strong correlation in general, and I believe that most people would argue that the temperature now is a bit higher than in the 1850s. Of course, some of those people have their own ‘theory’ about why the temps are higher… As long as we do not know the relative importance of the various factors that may influence climate, we cannot just correlate the climate with ONE factor and say ‘this is it!’. The immortal words of Tweedledee come to mind: “if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn’t, it ain’t.”
“Unfortunately, the [now unsupported] MM and LIA link has caught the public’s eye [and yours, it seems] and like a zombie cannot be beaten down and put to rest.”
And absolutely tons of scientific articles, official agency reports, college syllabus, Wiki and perhaps some I have missed. It appears your preference is to choose from a few articles that for one reason or another, deny any warming connection to anything other than greenhouse gasses, placating the IPCC. They must all be zombies, except those that swallow the IPCC line and sinker. I don’t trust your opinion, your calculations nor your reasoning skills.
I wasn’t going to mention it, but you have made in my opinion, several serious mistakes in logic. One was to intimate that two regional areas suggested to have experienced similar climate fluctuation in a certain time period removes that fluctuation from being only a regional event. That isn’t necessarily true, nor are all cats blue because a cat in Detroit is blue and a cat in Istanbul is blue. If you like, I will provide more examples.
.4 is a lot of heat, Leif. It is about half a W/m2 increase for many years of increasing solar activity. Your simple equation that appears to calculate the increase in temperature is hogwash. The Earth doesn’t work that way to be able to calculate global temperatures by such simple means.
“Since solar activity 1840-1880 was comparable to that of 1980-present, temperatures should be comparable too, if there is such a strong correlation in general, and I believe that most people would argue that the temperature now is a bit higher than in the 1850s.”
Sure it is a bit higher now than in 1840-1880, because you are wrong. Solar activity is higher now than 1980-present, and had just came out of a quiet period 1790-1835:
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dtx/images/zurich.gif
Glenn (11:55:46) :
It appears your preference is to choose from a few articles that for one reason or another, deny any warming connection to anything other than greenhouse gasses, placating the IPCC.
And this is where you go wrong in the most serious way as it colors your whole view of things. I do not think [and has never said] that the recent warming is due mostly to greenhouse gases. Undoubtedly a small part is [as CO2 is a greenhouse gas], but with an Earth covered 71% with a 3,700 meter deep ocean holding perhaps 300 times as much heat as the Atmosphere, any simpleminded AGW or Solar connection is equal folly. The IPCC report is just politics and should not be taken seriously.
.4 is a lot of heat, Leif. It is about half a W/m2 increase for many years of increasing solar activity
Yes, assuming that the heat stays, except it doesn’t. During the few minutes of a total solar eclipse, the temperature falls several degrees. In the desert at night, the temperature falls 30 degrees K. That great greenhouse gas Water Vapor raises the temperature 30 degrees.
Your simple equation that appears to calculate the increase in temperature is hogwash. The Earth doesn’t work that way to be able to calculate global temperatures by such simple means.
Oh yes, when it comes to small changes, then it is pretty good. After all, when comes in, must go out eventually, and the formula equates the two quantities. The formula says nothing about the effect of greenhouse gases [mainly Water Vapor], so assumes that the amount of greenhouse gases has not changed [something some people would violently oppose, but i have no qualms with that assumption, since most of it is Water Vapor anyway]
Glenn, try to get off the stifling fixation on what you wrongly acsribe to people, especially me, and start the learning process, as I suggested.