In comments, Jonn-X wondered:
Dead pixels or new sunspecks (pore-ettes) ?
At first I was pretty sure I was looking at nothing, then I saw the official NOAA bulletin
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/forecast.html
and the usual phrase, “The visible disk was spotless,” was omitted – typical practice when there’s something there, but too small to be “officially noticed.”
Anybody else see anything?
I do. I know where the dead pixels are, and have labeled them below in the SOHO MDI image. Note that there are two very small sunspecks, possibly soon to be sunspots, emerging on both sides of the equator.
Click for a full sized image
For those that don’t know. The SOHO spacecraft sensor does have some stuck pixels, and these can sometimes be cured in a “bake off” where they heat up the sensor for a few hours.
Our resident official solar physicist, Dr. Leif Svalgarrd will confirm or refute my suspicions on the categorizations of SC23 and SC24 I’m sure. For comparisons, you can also see the SOHO magnetogram.
I’ve included it also below:
UPDATE: The specks are fading, so far no observation agency has assigned a region or counted them that I know of, see the updated SOHO MDI.
UPDATED SOHO MDI:
Click for larger image
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
John-X (14:44:28) :
I would say there is now NO possibility of this winter NOT being blamed on the sun.
You can’t go wrong there. The spin of the die hard True Believers in SGC [Solar Global Cooling] will be something to behold. Both AGW and SGC are equally unfounded and yet both camps claim success: Any failure of SGC [as in 1980-2005] is taken as proof of AGW, and any failure of AGW [as since 2000] is taken as proof of SGC.
The spin of the die hard True Believers in SGC [Solar Global Cooling] will be something to behold. Both AGW and SGC are equally unfounded and yet both camps claim success: Any failure of SGC [as in 1980-2005] is taken as proof of AGW, and any failure of AGW [as since 2000] is taken as proof of SGC.
Ouch.
Leif Svalgaard (15:02:23) :
John-X (14:44:28) :
I would say there is now NO possibility of this winter NOT being blamed on the sun.
” You can’t go wrong there. The spin of the die hard True Believers in SGC [Solar Global Cooling] will be something to behold. Both AGW and SGC are equally unfounded and yet both camps claim success: Any failure of SGC [as in 1980-2005] is taken as proof of AGW, and any failure of AGW [as since 2000] is taken as proof of SGC.”
The “AGW” crowd has been arrogant and hysterical beyond belief – JUST THIS MORNING demanding food rationing, not because of shortages, but to change the climate. (This is one example of “AGW” economics – ration your surplus, tax and regulate your shortages).
Can anyone imagine an SGC Religion, complete with an Inquisition?
WE CAN’T FIX THE SUN, we can’t even pretend to.
If it’s cold because of the sun, WE HAVE TO LEARN TO DEAL WITH IT.
John-X (15:15:53) :
Can anyone imagine an SGC Religion, complete with an Inquisition?
Worse:
According to the Aztec creation myth, the Sun god demanded human sacrifice as tribute and without it would refuse to move through the sky. It is said that 20,000 people were sacrificed each year.
“if Rmax turns out to be, say, 70 [inside the overlap], both Clilverd and I [and many others] are ‘proven correct”
Don’t worry Leif, the ‘overlap’ is conceivable only because Clilverd has such a large sigma. You’ll be out 3, null hypothesis territory. Turn on your Lava lamp, look at cycle 5 (unrevised) and groove to the music of the spheres.
Leif Svalgaard (15:25:12) :
John-X (15:15:53) :
Can anyone imagine an SGC Religion, complete with an Inquisition?
” Worse:
According to the Aztec creation myth, the Sun god demanded human sacrifice as tribute and without it would refuse to move through the sky. It is said that 20,000 people were sacrificed each year. ”
All right, I’ll grant you that.
I can imagine SOME people saying that, if not as a way to get the sun moving, but as a way of taking care of unfinished business, we need some human sacrifice, starting with Gore and Hansen, and going down the list.
The list includes both presidential candidates, but human sacrifice is usually not without some chaos.
Gary Gulrud (15:44:05) :
Don’t worry Leif, the ‘overlap’ is conceivable only because Clilverd has such a large sigma.
What, me worry? A large sigma means a worthless prediction: I’ll predict the Dow Jones index next week to be 13,000+/-10,000, so now go and invest your life savings
look at cycle 5 (unrevised)
What you call ‘unrevised’ is the value revised by Wolf by reducing it by 50% from his 1880 estimate… [see page 6 of this]
John-X (15:50:19) :
The list includes both presidential candidates, but human sacrifice is usually not without some chaos.
Where there is action, there is usually some spillage…
“A large sigma means a worthless prediction”
A worthless error estimate more specifically.
“What you call ‘unrevised’ is the value revised by Wolf by reducing it by 50% from his 1880 estimate… [see page 6 of this]”
Whence the chicken or the egg? The important issue is the accepted Rmax is under 50.
While most of us can accept in principle the investigator responsible for the observation revising the data having discovered a systematic error, we are not likely ever to accept ad hoc revision at such a distance by a Gang of Several.
I think I’ve discovered the problem:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/30/heres-the-problem-with-the-sun/
Gary Gulrud (16:22:05) :
“A large sigma means a worthless prediction”
A worthless error estimate more specifically.
No, not at all. The error estimate is better than the prediction. It is not the case that 42 is right and +/-34 is wrong.
The important issue is the accepted Rmax is under 50.
Rmax should probably be 54, still small.
While most of us can accept in principle the investigator responsible for the observation revising the data having discovered a systematic error
Wolf did not make the observation in 1802. He was born in 1816…
we are not likely ever to accept ad hoc revision at such a distance by a Gang of Several.
There is no basis for accusing anybody of an revision. This is a very serious breach of decent etiquette. Shame on you!
Leif Svalgaard (16:34:39) :
we are not likely ever to accept ad hoc revision at such a distance by a Gang of Several.
There is no basis for accusing anybody of ad hoc revision. This is a very serious breach of decent etiquette. Shame on you!
I have several times urged you to follow the normal procedure for criticizing scientific work: read the evidence papers, comment specifically on each point that you feel is not correct, and give valid arguments for such assessment. Anything less than that is without merit.
“Both AGW and SGC are equally unfounded”
“Any failure of SGC [as in 1980-2005] is taken as proof of AGW, and any failure of AGW [as since 2000] is taken as proof of SGC.”
One small, sticky [t]issue flopping about behind: AGW is a stinking carcass exhumed for study. SGC is about to be tested over the next half-decade. The Delphic oracle says it is stillborn; that the global temperature trend will decline by 2.0. Make room for the contestants and have a care for your safety.
Something went wrong with my less than and greater than signs. Should be less than 0.2 versus greater than 2.0 degrees.
Too cute I guess.
The spin of the die hard True Believers in SGC [Solar Global Cooling] will be something to behold.
Offset, of course, by the counter-spin of the die-hard True Believers in Anything-But Solar Global Cooling (ABSGC), like Leif, whose disbelief that the sun can drive climate in any way is a profound and tenaciously held one.
SGC as far as I know has no political backing, no lobby, no agenda to speak of, except maybe a general desire that the arrogance and many misdeeds of AGW receive some kind of comeuppance.
There’s an underlying motivation for AGW: a hatred of free-market economics…
which in turn seems to flow from an idea that people are incapable of making right choices and need to have all important decisions made for them…
which in turn seems to flow from a hatred of humanity, expressed in its extreme form as “the human race is a virus.”
When you talk to people about SGC, most shudder at the possibilities. They’re not secretly wishing for it to really happen (except again, in a sort of perverse desire for AGW revenge).
“Pray for sunspots” is an idea you’ve seen here, and one which I’ve expressed myself.
I just look at my own daily experience and think about what holds it up.
Without a continued favorable climate, I think I’m in big trouble, and if I am, so are hundreds of millions more.
Even the Aztecs would consider a climate crash an unacceptable method of human sacrifice.
Yeah, except sacrifices work better with virgins.
Well, they could be truth virgins…
Gary Gulrud (16:46:14) :
SGC is about to be tested over the next half-decade.
Except that this is too short to be a valid test [will not deter people though]
The Delphic oracle says it is stillborn;
What kind of nonsense is this?
that the global temperature trend will decline by 2.0.
Something went wrong with my less than and greater than signs. Should be less than 0.2 versus greater than 2.0 degrees.
Hard to see how that could make these difference. Anyway, the die-hards like Archibald would think that 2.0 is even too small.
Too cute I guess.
As many of your attempts…
Just try to stick to facts or opinions about facts without embellishments, comments on people’s logic [or lack thereof], intentions, behavior, and the like.
Bruce Cobb (16:50:36) :
Leif, whose disbelief that the sun can drive climate in any way is a profound and tenaciously held one.
You got that one a bit wrong. What I’m saying is that the Sun is not the primary/dominant driver. Certainly there are some small effect as there is some small effect of CO2, all of the order of, perhaps 0.1K. Hardly measurable and certainly not significant. If the effects were large [‘overwhelming’ some say] we would not have these discussions.
What I’m saying is that the Sun is not the primary/dominant driver. Certainly there are some small effect as there is some small effect of CO2, all of the order of, perhaps 0.1K. Hardly measurable and certainly not significant.
You’re entitled to your Beliefs, Leif, odd though they may be.
Bruce Cobb (19:44:23) :
You’re entitled to your Beliefs, Leif, odd though they may be.
yes, but please don’t misrepresent them.
yes, but please don’t misrepresent them.
Fine, but what are they? First you say the Sun is not the primary/dominant driver., then you say there are some small effect as there is some small effect of CO2, all of the order of, perhaps 0.1K. Hardly measurable and certainly not significant.
You could drive a tractor trailer between those two statements, an indication perhaps of your own cognitive dissonance.
Bruce Cobb (04:55:40) :
Fine, but what are they? First you say the Sun is not the primary/dominant driver., then you say there are some small effect as there is some small effect of CO2, all of the order of, perhaps 0.1K. Hardly measurable and certainly not significant.
You could drive a tractor trailer between those two statements, an indication perhaps of your own cognitive dissonance.
All I’m saying is that I will not argue against claims that solar and CO2 might have some minor effects not exceeding 0.1K because effect that are that small cannot be said to be primary drivers of variations that are ten times larger. Where is the dissonance?
# MONTHLY REPORT ON THE INTERNATIONAL SUNSPOT NUMBER
# from the SIDC (RWC-Belgium)
#————————————-
SEPTEMBER 2008
PROVISIONAL INTERNATIONAL NORMALIZED HEMISPHERIC SUNSPOT NUMBERS
Date Ri Rn Rs
_________________________________________________
1 0 0 0
2 0 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
5 0 0 0
6 0 0 0
7 0 0 0
8 0 0 0
9 0 0 0
10 0 0 0
11 7 7 0
12 0 0 0
13 0 0 0
14 0 0 0
15 0 0 0
16 0 0 0
17 0 0 0
18 0 0 0
19 0 0 0
20 0 0 0
21 0 0 0
22 8 8 0
23 9 9 0
24 0 0 0
25 0 0 0
26 0 0 0
27 0 0 0
28 0 0 0
29 8 0 8
30 0 0 0
____________________________________________________
MONTHLY MEAN : 1.1 0.8 0.3
COOPERATING STATIONS : 67 60 60
“SGC is about to be tested over the next half-decade.”
Understood, see Dave Archibald for SGC orthodoxy.
“Just try to stick to facts or opinions about facts without embellishments, comments on people’s logic [or lack thereof], intentions, behavior, and the like.”
Remove the log from your own eye, Sir. It’s what we do with facts that exercises those frequenting Anthony’s corner.
“The Delphic oracle says it is stillborn;
What kind of nonsense is this?
that the global temperature trend will decline by 2.0.”
Should have read ‘less than 0.2 degrees’. I’m html challenged.