# Solar Cycle Length, Its Rate of Change, & the Northern Hemisphere

Guest post by Paul L. Vaughan, M.Sc.

“Eyeball” methods of measuring solar cycle length (SCL) by looking at successive minima or maxima only take a measurement on average every 11 years. They ignore all of the sunspots occurring during the interim.

In contrast, wavelet methods utilize all sunspots, producing objective estimates of instantaneous solar cycle length at the temporal resolution of the data.

Graph legend notes:

1) measurements based on successive solar:

min = minimum

max = maximum

2) authors:

FCLT = Friis-Christensen, Lassen, & Thejll

http://web.dmi.dk/fsweb/solarterrestrial/sunclimate/SCL.txt

( pv08 = my 2008 “eyeball” adjustments to FCLT )

JA = Jan Alvestad

http://www.solen.info/solar/index.html

3) Wavelet measurements based on all sunspots are denoted SCL[w], where w = Morlet wavenumber. (Large w indicates coarse resolution, while small w indicates fine resolution.)

Here’s a look at the rate of change of solar cycle length (SCL’):

Friis-Christensen, Lassen, & Thejll were completely off my radar when I produced results presented here and here . Comments appearing in the latter thread reminded me of the existence of their work. I had considered their work a few years ago, finding:

1) Their measurement methods were wholly unsatisfying.

2) Leif Svalgaard was steamrolling their claims (and Leif was making substantive points).

Wavelet methods are simple. The Morlet wavelet is nothing more than a sine & cosine wave multiplied by a bell-shaped curve to taper the edges. All a wavelet algorithm does is iteratively calculate correlations (to see what matches the wavelet shape) and perform scaling, coordinate, & units conversions. That’s it.

Most of the confusion which arose in the discussion here was a result of participants not realizing that the spacing of the sine & cosine waves in a wavelet can be adjusted to see at varying resolution (Morlet 2pi being a coarse view).

Important:

Generalizations about SCL do not apply to SCL’.

Just as sine & cosine waves have zero correlation, oscillations of SCL & SCL’ are nearly orthogonal. Consider why data reduction methods like PCA (principal components analysis) have been developed and why differential equations include (rather than omit) terms with neighboring low-order derivatives.

Perhaps Friis-Christensen, Lassen, & Thejll were looking at the right variable, but not thinking about orthogonality & differential equations?

Graph notes:

Raw (not anomaly) ERSSTv3b data are from KNMI Climate Explorer.

http://climexp.knmi.nl/

[1a] indicates smoothing over the annual cycle.

ERSST = extended reconstructed sea surface temperature

0-90N = northern hemisphere

0 0 vote
Article Rating
115 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
rbateman
September 11, 2010 4:04 pm

Try Mortlet (Pi/2) for a more PSF function.
When you find the finest resolution that can be supported without artifacting, then the data can be put through a deconvolution process (at the PSF of the finest resolution) to increase the signal to noise ratio.
Talk to Astronomers about this: They do it all the time to get the most information out of thier work.

Editor
September 11, 2010 4:35 pm

I’ve been trying to think of a good way to generate an instantaneous frequency plot of the solar cycle. It always seemed to me as if the solar connection should be through a frequency modulation.

jorgekafkazar
September 11, 2010 4:57 pm

Holy cow! The wiggles match. Except when they don’t, which seems to be the case for the latest wiggle. Up to that point, it’s very interesting. Are there known data smoothing end effects that would make the last (2000-2010) wiggles match better if we had real data beyond 2010?
And why just the northern hemisphere? Then there’s the issue: does selection of the resolution constitute {gasp} cherry-picking, especially given that there are only 5 wiggles? ¿Two pi, or not two pi, that is the question. Is there some physical basis for selection of that number? What solar mechanism or phenomenon exists that should result in any correlation between SCL’ and ERSSTv3b? TSI doesn’t seem to fill the bill. Is a puzzlement.

1DandyTroll
September 11, 2010 5:07 pm

Solar cycles, pfft.
What about Earth’s cycles? Every year, every spring, I travel like what, about 7000 km closer to the sun and our average temperature goes from 15-20 below to 25-30 above, in degrees C. In just a couple of month’s time really. I have observed this fact every year for pretty much my whole life. It’s also reinforced due to the fact that during high winter where I live we sometime go south about 7000 km during a short vacation and lo and behold in just 6 hours flight time we go from sub zero 20 below to 30 above, 24 above water temperature. To me this seem to infer that our own little star called Sol prolly has a more then a slightly more then a major impact on our climate, and all for a measly tilt or for a few measly thousand kilometers.
But I’m sure me and my family will be very very sad indeed that our average temperature during four month of winter will be about 19-24 below instead of about 20-25 below in 2094. But hey in like 3000 years I’ll be able to go in shorts all year round at a nice 15C, and that’ll be the day.

commieBob
September 11, 2010 5:08 pm

Give students an equation and they will apply it no matter whether it is appropriate or not … just saying.

September 11, 2010 5:20 pm

The correlation between ERSST and rate of change of SCL is strong. But still not satisfying – why does the final ERSST rise so much more than the SCL’ curve? Suspect data?? changes of instrumentation allowing AGW slides elsewhere to corrupt the calibration?? or not?? or does the correlation depend further on (a) lag (b) cumulative effects??

Green Sand
September 11, 2010 6:00 pm

1DandyTroll says:
September 11, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Aw shucks Dandy, there you go again complicating and overstating everything.
You are well aware that it is not 7000km it is but a mere 4350 miles!
But you folks all enjoy that 1 deg in 2094, fairly sure I won’t be around to take advantage, but I will rest happy knowing my contribution is appreciated.
Regards

Joseph Day
September 11, 2010 6:09 pm

There is a solar connection evident through cosmogenic isotopes. Interestingly, northern and southern hemisphere isotope concentrations in ice cores don’t exactly match. That suggests either a weather factor, or more likely anisotropy of the cosmic rays themselves. Furthermore, the differences in cosmic ray flux between glacial and interglacial are so large, that it seems difficult to believe the sun is the only factor controlling climate.
It seems reasonable there could be different densities of cosmic rays flowing through the galaxy. If the Earth passes into or out of one of these higher density streams, the solar effect could be dwarfed by the change in the external source. Galactic magnetic fields and nearby nebula densities could be factors affecting the density of cosmic rays reaching Earth. Although we currently see little anisotropy, it is expected that cosmic ray anisotropy, density and energy variability are expected. Medvedev, et al., state, “The magnetic field fluctuations in the Galaxy are of high amplitude…. The effects of [cosmic ray] particle trapping and mirroring are important.” See: http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/664/2/879/70903.text.html
It is very clear that the Greenland ice core 10Be levels contain the Younger Dryas signal, whereas the antarctic data do not. Whatever happened in the northern hemisphere at the end of the Ice Age is different from what happened in the south. Cosmic ray anisotropy and external density fluctuations could explain that difference, whereas solar cycle variations could explain lesser events like the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period which show a much smaller amplitude cosmogenic isotope correlation.
The model is:
Solar wind density (higher), correlated with sunspot number (also higher) ->
Cosmic ray flux at Earth (lower) ->
Cloud formation (less) ->
Temperature (higher)
See: http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/pdf/Gamma%20Rays%20and%20Climate%20-%20Perry,%20Charles.pdf
And of course, in this model the reverse is true. With fewer sunspots, the temperature on Earth is expected to be cooler.
Naturally, we can add on refinements like the heat capacity of oceans, and the effects of deep ocean currents to begin to address climate. Also, we know there are changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun that may play a role. Perhaps the best we can do is to adapt to whatever happens. Humans are ordinarily good at adaptation. Unfortunately, governments are getting in the way of individual choice, so we collectively suffer the same fate.
The good news is, Nature is always teaching us a lesson. The latest one is in progress. Government plans may furiously be rewritten in the next few years as they try desperately to remain credible.

BrianP
September 11, 2010 6:26 pm

This one leaves me totally confused, what are you trying to say.

JDN
September 11, 2010 6:57 pm

Paul: What is your y-axis? Surely not sunspots, they’re at a low right now.
Also, whose sunspot data are you using. I don’t like the counting of every little speck as a sunspot that has recently taken place. It’s sort of like counting every tropical depression as an actual storm; it destroys the value of the historical record just to increase your current numbers to fit your theory.

rbateman
September 11, 2010 7:35 pm

Use the measured Sunspot Area, and recompute.
Additionally, use the measured Faculae Area data 1874-1974.

MDR
September 11, 2010 7:35 pm

Paul,
I would like to provide some (hopefully constructive) criticism regarding the format of this post. Presumably you are making a scientific measurement (or measurements) of SCL, but unfortunately for me this post reads like a list of research notes rather than an explanation of anything.
You seem to have generally listed and explained your methodology here (applying wavelet analysis to what I glean is a proxy for the Wolf sunspot number), but would it be possible to also provide a brief explanation of the hypothesis you are testing, as well as an interpretation of the conclusion you arrive at?
Thanks.

tom
September 11, 2010 8:07 pm

You have assumed your readers have same level of understanding on this topic that you do. I don’t. The relevance of those charts is lost without a dumbed down summary.

AusieDan
September 11, 2010 11:09 pm

I agree with Tom and the other posts requesting clarification.
This is not a report suitable for the general public.
It is also not suitable as a paper in a scientific journal where at least the abstract is vaugely understandable.
I see that some readers could understand it and have commented, unfortunately in terms that I also cannot understand.
Surely this is not such a difficult subject that nobody can put it all into plain English?
Help please!

wayne
September 12, 2010 12:13 am

Paul, ( and tom September 11, 2010 at 8:07 pm )
I agree with rbateman, try the area instead of merely width. Sometimes height also seems to matter. Could get you even tighter of a match. The only thing you might have problems with is that area is an ever increasing function (across time). The area always grows of course.
You might already know every thing I’m about to say just by the mention of the word area, so, maybe this is just for others interested in this topic and, as tom, just want some words to help explain this better. Here’s my limited understanding.
If you try it, by the area, first, you are assuming that solar activity has something to do with the Earth’s temperature. Right? The LIA was cooler and activity was way down, same as the times around 1810 and 1910. The 1990’s were warmer and solar activity was way up. And I tend to agree there seems something here. Set that in stone so the next variable is real and necessary.
Second, you need to pick a value that represents a certain “balance” level of activity where if every solar cycle was at that level, the temperature would not change at all. Cycle areas under the curve above this value would cause warming, cycle areas below, cooling. I found the number is around 45-50 if using SSN yearly as a proxy to the activity for starters. Other activity proxies would have their own value of course. Your analysis should coerce out that balance level value. Now, offset downward this value from each year’s value as you integrate by merely adding each year to the previous sum and subtracting the balance value. You now have a sinusoidal function of the cycle areas. Above zero warming, below cooling. From this you can get the aerial change (i.e. differentiate).
BTW, I have tried very simple analysis but lacked some of the finer tool such as your Morlet wave function, that was over my head. Great job. I however DID notice across this “area” view of solar activity that you can see the ringing across many cycles that dies out gradually as the decades go by and on multiple scales, then along comes another big pulse. After reading about the Morlet function that’s so close to what it does, the ringing. Hope this helps getting you even a closer correlation, though, yours above is so very close to begin with. You’ve got something there. Interesting.

September 12, 2010 1:09 am

Paul
Many of us sense you are on to something interesting but don’t understand your writing. This is exactly the trouble, increasingly, with scientific papers that are incomprehensible to the ever-smaller in-crowd, and WE KNOW WHERE THAT HAS LED US with the Team as Steve McIntyre calls it.
If citizens’ science is to provide the needed counterweight to deadly orthodox papers (deadly because they are apocalyptic, cannot be understood, and cannot be reproduced and verified), as Open Source does to Bill Gates, the work needs to be explained accessibly, always starting from the human interest and ending with human conclusions, going back to basics frequently, to catch each new boatload of interest, and to reinforce all our understanding.
It is to PNAS’ credit that they’ve just published a work challenging a study that “correlates” climate change and civil wars, and that the whole Abstract of that study tells a very human story and uses commonsense.

September 12, 2010 1:21 am

Paul is doing good analytical exercise, but to be convincing relationship it has to be simple and direct . Think of all great relationships from F=ma and V=RI to e=mc2 etc., climate relationships are convoluted and simplicity here may be impossible.
Direct influence of either the cycle intensity or SCL is likely to be small to make large enough impact . Also correlation is required during whole of SC historical record, or at least from 1700.
On the other hand global temperature averaging does not make great deal of sense since there is a definite time lag between the Atlantic and Pacific, the regional changes with a good long term record may be preferable.
In my own investigation I found events which correlates both the solar cycles and temperature, while not obvious consequence of either.
Atlantic :
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/STP.htm
Pacific:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDOa.htm
There also the odd (Earth’s) magnetic field correlations
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
and updated
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC20.htm
Suffice to say, the explanations for none of the above are within easy reach.

tallbloke
September 12, 2010 1:44 am

wayne says:
September 12, 2010 at 12:13 am
you need to pick a value that represents a certain “balance” level of activity where if every solar cycle was at that level, the temperature would not change at all. Cycle areas under the curve above this value would cause warming, cycle areas below, cooling. I found the number is around 45-50 if using SSN yearly as a proxy to the activity

The value I came up with after analysing by this method was 42SSN.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/nailing-the-solar-activity-global-temperature-divergence-lie/

M White
September 12, 2010 2:04 am

“In contrast, wavelet methods utilize all sunspots”
Problem, I and many others have asked would the likes of Johann Rudolf Wolf born in 1816 seen some of the specs that are being counted today. Below is the first published picture on the landscheidt website of the sun using their new Wolf pocket scope.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/Sept_7_2010.png
Compare to the Spaceweather image (Sunspot number: 24)
http://spaceweather.com/images2010/07sep10/hmi1024_blank.jpg?PHPSESSID=as78r0i0063edt17r7ed0jfqk3&PHPSESSID=h05kcakr9c1tdf2g9vi5br2kk1
2010/09/11 08:00 Today is technically the forth spotless day as the new region measures just under the threshold at 300 pixels. Locarno has counted 13 with Catania at 12, I am struggling to see how they arrived at the extras. The Wolfcam has been observing all day and barely makes out this new region through the solar filter. An attempt at projecting delivered zero.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
Compare to Spaceweather
http://spaceweather.com/

Sara Chan
September 12, 2010 2:06 am

I’ve been following blogs on global warming for years: WUWT, CA, BH, etc. And this post is special, because I have no clue as to what it is saying. Why was this posted?
Please can we have a update that puts this into terms regular readers can understand?

LazyTeenager
September 12, 2010 2:11 am

As others have noted it is badly written and needs standard stuff like intro and conclusion.
I did conclude that it was explaining the discovery of a correlation between NH sea surface temperatures and the derivative of the solar cycle length. But this observation is left hanging in mud air.
The irony is that the temperature record is often represented as fraudulent and here we have evidence that it us not. Unless of course someone wants to try and fly a conspiracy in which the temperature record was synthesized by using a wavelet analysis of the sunspot cycle. That would take an expert lead balloon aeronaut indeed.

Editor
September 12, 2010 2:12 am

I fixed some formatting issues, which might clear up some confusion.

John Finn
September 12, 2010 3:10 am

Paul
I don’t want to comment too much as this stage. Could I, though, just ask a hypothetical question.
Consider 6 solar cycles of the following lengths: 13, 13, 13, 10, 10, 10. Assuming a SCL’ /ERSST link could you tell us what the this sequence of cycles would imply for NH SST. In particular, how would the temperatures during the 5th/6th cycles compare with those during the 1st/2nd cycles.
Please don’t say that the Morlet analysis looks at more than just the min -> min measurements. I know this, but you may recall, on the previous thread, I asked you to plot SCL (not SCL’). You have now done so (first graph) and as I suspected SCL (2pi) is essentially a smoothed version of the ‘discrete’ cycle length values.
Note that the purpose of the question is to clarify the issue – not to show that anyone is right or wrong.

Ulric Lyons
September 12, 2010 4:52 am

“Eyeball” methods of measuring solar cycle length (SCL) by looking at successive minima or maxima only take a measurement on average every 11 years. They ignore all of the sunspots occurring during the interim.
In contrast, wavelet methods utilize all sunspots, producing objective estimates of instantaneous solar cycle length at the temporal resolution of the data.
……………………………………………………………………
Like an ecosystem boundary?
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/emrrp/emris/emrishelp/spatial_boundaries_ecosystem_management.htm
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/emrrp/emris/emrishelp/what_is_scale_.htm
Can you explain what “all of the sunspots occurring during the interim” has to do with the time passed from a given minimum, to the following maximum, and to the next minimum.

Joe Lalonde
September 12, 2010 5:08 am

Paul,
I have a couple of problems with this science.
One, since the sun is massive in size and the sunspots occur at different lattitudes on the sun, how are we getting true readings when the waves would be different in dispersement?
Second, what proxies are being used to calculate back when the measuring technology was not invented going back in time?
The theory on sunspots I find to be incorrect as it does not take into account of the speed of our solar system and rotation. Actual speed of the solar system is impossible to accurately calculate as every other system in space is moving. So, to get a triangulation is impossible.
Next, I believe the estimate is 300km/sec is the speed of the milkyway system.
Now any object to hit the sun would not have time to melt or burn up but to impact the surface of the sun. This would create the sunspot by blocking gases at that impact area.
How accurate are the readings when our planet is moving at 18.5 miles a second and the planet is rotating at 1669.8km an hour when these satellites are being pulled with us?

wayne
September 12, 2010 5:16 am

tallbloke says:
September 12, 2010 at 1:44 am
The value I came up with after analysing by this method was 42SSN.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/nailing-the-solar-activity-global-temperature-divergence-lie/

Tallbloke, I’m so glad at least one other person has actually performed that too. I’ve posted that description two or three other times since last November seemingly to deaf ears. That is what got me here to Anthony in the first place, no kidding. That value stated was just a starting point which depends on the slope. Mine were always across the full 300 years and it does float depending on the temps your are correlating to, GISS, HadCRUT, etc, but always near 45-50 so I’m glad you got the same. And that makes sense, your using SST and mine were land or global, and the sea temperatures don’t show as much of a climb, lower slope. It sure is possible to be some real factor in physics, that balance point.
Every person I have shown those not-yet-correct graphs to have become a bona fide skeptic on the spot. They don’t seem to care of the tiny differences either. Show them the solar plot I described since 1700 and show them the global temp plot today, a bit on the seemingly small lag, that’s all it takes. Love those normal logical people!
No wonder, it does seem to make perfect sense (but not to climate scientists I have found). You know, I don’t understand why the general non-scientific public could think that the sun has something to do with the temperatures here on Earth, crazy, but for some reason they just do. ☺

phlogiston
September 12, 2010 6:47 am

@jorgekafkazar
I think in 12-24 months time you will find the wiggle match to be much improved.

Pamela Gray
September 12, 2010 7:37 am

Has anybody thought about measuring/counting coronal holes instead of sunspots over time? Those coronal holes throw a LOT of stuff out. More so than sunspots!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_hole

DR
September 12, 2010 7:45 am

Synchronized chaos…….
Tsonis’ hypothesis is looking better all the time; several processes struggling for superiority, when they are in sync, that is when large climate shifts take place. Which metrics are now in sync? Is a new climate shift forming?

Pamela Gray
September 12, 2010 7:51 am

Coronal holes are especially important matrices when there are no sunspots. My hunch is that sunspots are not representative of what the Sun is doing in terms of its impact on Earth. A quiet (IE no sunspots) Sun is not necessarily a “sleeping” Sun.

Ulric Lyons
September 12, 2010 8:32 am

Pamela Gray says:
September 12, 2010 at 7:37 am
Has anybody thought about measuring/counting coronal holes instead of sunspots over time? Those coronal holes throw a LOT of stuff out. More so than sunspots!
………………………………………………………..
More often than sunspots, higher speed turbulent solar wind from sunspots around solar maximum can also give intense warming spurts, but warming events around maximums are less frequent due to a lack of coronal holes, hence more cold episodes/winters at, and close to solar maximums.

Tim Channon
September 12, 2010 9:54 am

“Joseph Day says:
September 11, 2010 at 6:09 pm
There is a solar connection evident through cosmogenic isotopes. Interestingly, northern and southern hemisphere isotope concentrations in ice cores don’t exactly match. That suggests either a weather factor, or more likely anisotropy of the cosmic rays themselves. Furthermore, the differences in cosmic ray flux between glacial and interglacial are so large, that it seems difficult to believe the sun is the only factor controlling climate.
…”
I agree there is a major problem with 10Be and ice cores.
Fujidome Antarctica shows a De Vries pattern and extends this to a longer period. This has interesting linkages to other data.
The Greenland data I have looked at is distinctly different.
Why that is so seems kind of obvious. The radiation flux is calculated using assumed precipitation data (annual ice thickness), the flux is not an absolute measurement, proxies involved.
Antarctica is weather isolated by the southern circumpolar ocean current and similar atmospheric patterns. Greenland is not and is linked to at least Atlantic weather.
The problem is that weather may well be linked to radiation flux and therefore precipitation is correlated in some unknown way with flux. Calculating flux from two proxies where there is unknown linkages and in places with differing weather linkage might well explain the mystery.
Could it be uneven flux, eg. from differing external magnetic fields? Yes.
A recent exercise I carried out was investigating latitudinal correlation (including against time) with global gridded data. To my surprise the Antarctic circumpolar current shows clearly as a discontinuity.
The correlation between tropics and poles is zero. The whole thing is all over the place and what I was expecting was not there. Satellite data shows a smooth bell curve, eg. Hadcrut is a mess but ought to be identical. (this is no surprise)
Given better data I expect there are interesting things. Is a to-be-revisted matter.

Paul Vaughan
September 12, 2010 11:47 am

Tim Channon wrote: “Antarctica is weather isolated by the southern circumpolar ocean current and similar atmospheric patterns. […] A recent exercise I carried out was investigating latitudinal correlation (including against time) with global gridded data. To my surprise the Antarctic circumpolar current shows clearly as a discontinuity.”
Bravo. Nice work Tim! …except for the “surprised” part. [ :

Paul Vaughan
September 12, 2010 12:11 pm

Re: Lucy Skywalker
The obvious one is the Southern Oscillation.
(Remember that the analysis presented here has focused on the ~11 year timescale.)
Beyond that: other spatiotemporal heterogeneities — e.g. north/south asymmetry, including nonlinearities related to the contrasting heat capacity of land & sea – and the absence of a spinning maritime hub in the north.
Also, don’t forget about the various annual & diurnal cycles and relationships that flip sign regionally during parts of these cycles …only a seeming paradox to the unwary.

Paul Vaughan
September 12, 2010 12:30 pm

MDR wrote: “[…] would it be possible to also provide a brief explanation of the hypothesis you are testing, as well as an interpretation of the conclusion you arrive at?”
I’m not testing a hypothesis; rather, I’m exploring data. I do not arrive at a conclusion; rather, I raise questions for physicists & climate scientists.
The physicists & statisticians on this job need a few lessons from physical geographers – specifically, the ones with advanced understanding of issues arising in data analysis due to spatiotemporal heterogeneity. (In short: The assumptions underpinning conventional mainstream models, including the ones used to test for statistical significance, are untenable.)
I suggest focus on the job rather than on emotions, territoriality, funding politics, etc. The job is multidisciplinary. No field need feel threatened by a lack of internal expertise.
I appreciate your interest MDR.
Best Regards.

September 12, 2010 12:38 pm

M White says:
September 12, 2010 at 2:04 am
Below is the first published picture on the landscheidt website of the sun using their new Wolf pocket scope.
Several comments:
1) Wolf’s scale was not based on his magnification x40 ‘pocket telescope, but on his magn. x64 large telescope
2) which is still in use and produces sunspot count a bit larger than the official SSN
3) an experienced observer is far superior to a photograph, because the seeing varies rapidly and the observer can [and does] take advantage of brief periods of good seeing
4) and experience itself is a large factor. Experiments show that it takes about a year of daily observations to become experienced, during which time the count about doubles

September 12, 2010 12:45 pm

M White says:
September 12, 2010 at 2:04 am
Locarno has counted 13 with Catania at 12, I am struggling to see how they arrived at the extras.
Because there were one or two tiny ‘pores’ next to the spot. Modern counting methods count everything, so the SSN becomes SSN = 10*G + (1 spot + 2 pores) = 13.
G is the number of groups which is clearly 1 in this case. Wolf did not count pores, so his count would have been 10*1+1 spot = 11.

Paul Vaughan
September 12, 2010 1:26 pm

Re: rbateman
Pi/2 would violate admissibility …(way too technical for this forum…)

jorgekafkazar wrote: “Are there known data smoothing end effects […]?”
As indicated in the earlier threads: Yes (at the recent end of the graph).

JDN wrote: “Paul: What is your y-axis? […] Also, whose sunspot data are you using.”
On the 1st graph: Solar cycle length in years.
2nd & 3rd graphs: Normalized rate of change of solar cycle length, preserving sign (i.e. normalizing relative to maximum absolute deviation) and normalized SST (normalizing based on range since there is no sign issue).
Sunspot numbers:
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/INTERNATIONAL/monthly/

Re: wayne
Bear in mind that in the current post I’m focused on phase, not amplitude.
If we switch the focus to amplitude and consider the integral of solar wind, then yes we’ll find interesting patterns shared with SAOT (stratospheric aerosol optical thickness) and Southeast Pacific & Southern Ocean SST, but judging from comments appearing in this thread, this audience is not ready for that (at this point in time). Patience & timing wayne. Sequence matters. Cart-before-the-horse sort of thing…

Re: vukcevic
You’re raising some interesting questions there vukcevic.

Re: M White
The focus in the current post is on phase, not amplitude.

Re: John Finn
In your example you’d have a flat zero-line with a negative spike in the middle. However let me be absolutely clear: At this stage I am not interested in making forecasts. My current interest remains exploratory data analysis.

Re: Joe Lalonde
The current post is focused on phase. There are, indeed, other factors on which to focus in other studies — for example, see here for an interesting example:
Donner, R.; & Thiel, M. (2007). Scale-resolved phase coherence analysis of hemispheric sunspot activity: a new look at the north-south asymmetry. Astronomy & Astrophysics 475, L33-L36. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078672.
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/pdf/2007/45/aa8672-07.pdf

Paul Vaughan
September 12, 2010 1:53 pm

Regarding this [ http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2010/09/solar-cycle-and-climate.html ] overview of the earlier thread [ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/04/the-north-pacific-solar-cycle-change/ ], a few corrections:
1) I’m not a solar scientist. My background is in landscape ecology, physical geography, biology, statistics, engineering, & forestry.
2) Although I sincerely appreciate his interest, Mr. Oplas has seriously misunderstood my point about the fundamental difference between PDO & North Pacific SST. In particular: PDO matches neither North Pacific SST nor SCL’.
I again encourage people to make an effort to clear up any misunderstandings about what PDO is and what it is not. Bob Tisdale gives help at an accessible level:
Tisdale, Bob (2010). An Introduction To ENSO, AMO, and PDO – Part 3.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/09/introduction-to-enso-amo-and-pdo-part-3.html

September 12, 2010 2:18 pm

Paul L. Vaughan, M.Sc.:
“Eyeball” methods of measuring solar cycle length (SCL) by looking at successive minima or maxima only take a measurement on average every 11 years. They ignore all of the sunspots occurring during the interim.
There are good physical reasons for this. Sunspots ~11 year apart are independent in the sense that the Sun has no way [we know of] of preserving the memory of short-lived spot-complexes. Having said that, it is also true that there is high autocorrelation because the solar cycle has a time scale of many years. The high auto-correlation means that a cycle only has about 20 degrees of freedom. The polar fields is sort of a crude ‘memory’ in the sense that they result from the decay and migration of sunspot fields [only 1/1000 of the latter makes it to the poles], and a ‘physical’ definition of the length of the cycle might be from polar field reversal to the next reversal, which is roughly from maximum to maximum of the sunspot cycle. But it is doubtful that the SLC or its derivative, as such, can have any effect on the climate, that we cannot see by simply looking at the direct correlations [such as they are] between solar activity and climate. This is IMHO the main flaw of Friis-Christensen/Lassen the ‘findings’ [apart from the sloppy and inadmissible ‘analysis’]
The independence bit is like measuring the difference in altitude between Death Valley and Mt. Whitney, it doesn’t matter what the terrain between them looks like.

Paul Vaughan
September 12, 2010 3:31 pm

Ulric Lyons,
Good links you provide. I see, for example, mention of emergent properties in the very last line of the latter link.
Further reading:
Allen, T.F.H.; & Hoekstra, T. W. (1992). Toward a unified ecology. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Pattern is a function of scale.
There are endless of examples of what statisticians call “Simpson’s Paradox” (which goes by different names in different fields).
There is nothing paradoxical for those who take the time to realize that even if fine resolution is available, aggregation criteria affect spatial patterns.
Fotheringham & Rogerson (1993) assert that scale-dependency “[…] presents us with the challenge of reporting on the reliability of parameter estimates in the light of changes in scale […]”
Fotheringham, A.S.; & Rogerson, P.A. (1993). GIS and Spatial Analytical Problems. International Journal of Geographic Information Systems 7(1), 3-19.
This point is relevant to a concern raised by jorgekafkazar about “cherry-picking”. In short: Look at all scales – i.e. roll the focus, noting the scale of pattern transitions and whether transitions are abrupt or diffuse, etc., bearing in mind the concept of emergence.

Paul Vaughan
September 12, 2010 3:43 pm

Re: Leif Svalgaard
Let’s just be mindful of confounding. For example SCL’ is confounded with solar cycle phase acceleration …and with what else? As always, I’m leaving physics to physicists…
…and have they convinced me there is no possible reason for a connection (whether direct or via confounded variables): Absolutely not.

Ulric Lyons
September 12, 2010 5:44 pm

Paul Vaughan says:
September 12, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Ulric Lyons, Good links you provide.
_________________________________________
I though you might find some tips there, though my question did not get an answer, but I do like the way Lief puts it; “it doesn’t matter what the terrain between them looks like.”
In your SCL graph http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/scl_morlet_fclt_pv_ja1.png with the red dots on the minimums and the blue dots on the maximums, there does not seem to be any significant disagreement in SCL. But strange that the dots line up on the vertical but not the horizontal.

September 12, 2010 5:53 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 12, 2010 at 12:38 pm
1) Wolf’s scale was not based on his magnification x40 ‘pocket telescope, but on his magn. x64 large telescope
But he used the pocket telescope a hell of a lot. It is nice to know what he saw and I think the smaller scope may have relevance to his x64 threshold.
2) which is still in use and produces sunspot count a bit larger than the official SSN
I am investigating this area and will do a report soon, do we have daily drawings from Keller so we can compare properly? The difference between the modern telescope and Wolf’s at x64 is substantial.

September 12, 2010 7:36 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
September 12, 2010 at 5:53 pm
But he used the pocket telescope a hell of a lot. It is nice to know what he saw and I think the smaller scope may have relevance to his x64 threshold.
His x64 threshold was established a dozen years before he began to use the x40, and therefore the x40 is not relevant. To compensate for the weaker performance of the x40, Wolf multiplied all counts using the x40 by 1.5 [i.e. increased the SSN by 50%] in order to approximate his standard at x64. This multiplication does not work when the sunspot number is close to zero, that is, there could be small well observed at x64, but not at x40. This skews the SSN at low activity and thus damages the homogeneity of the series.
I am investigating this area and will do a report soon, do we have daily drawings from Keller so we can compare properly?
Yes, I have tried to locate them [no luck yet]. We must assume that Keller reports correctly [he counts everything he can see] and that we cannot improve on what he reports.
The difference between the modern telescope and Wolf’s at x64 is substantial.
I assume that you are talking about your own scope. Keller uses the original Wolf scope built by Fraunhofer in the late 1830s or early 1840s, so no difference there. If you are talking about your own scope there will be a large difference, which makes one wonder why you don’t do as Wolf and use a standard Wolf-telescope at x64, with which the Wolf standard is defined. The x40 has nothing to do with the Wolf standard or with determining what Wolf would count using his standard telescope. He already knew that he would see a lot less and therefore needed to increase his sunspot number determined from the x49 by 50% to match his standard. You can see the damage done using the x49 if you look at the lowest daily sunspot number that he reported during 1862-1877 [omitting a few days where the count was not done by him – that info is available]. You’ll find that instead of the SSN=11 as we would expect for a single spot, he invariably reports 11*1.5 = 16.

September 12, 2010 7:42 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
September 12, 2010 at 5:53 pm
The difference between the modern telescope and Wolf’s at x64 is substantial.
If you are talking about Catania, Locarno, Uccle, etc [which your use of singular may indicate that you do not], then the determining factor is the magnification x64 which is the same. Waldmeier repeatedly found that Locarno and Catania see the same spots as Wolf’s standard telescope in Zurich.

September 12, 2010 8:29 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 12, 2010 at 7:36 pm
determined from the x49 by 50% to match his standard. You can see the damage done using the x49
both should be x40, of course.

September 12, 2010 8:40 pm

Paul Vaughan says:
September 12, 2010 at 3:43 pm
…and have they convinced me there is no possible reason for a connection (whether direct or via confounded variables): Absolutely not.
so why are you doing this?

September 12, 2010 8:44 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 12, 2010 at 7:42 pm
If you are talking about Catania, Locarno, Uccle, etc [which your use of singular may indicate that you do not], then the determining factor is the magnification x64 which is the same. Waldmeier repeatedly found that Locarno and Catania see the same spots as Wolf’s standard telescope in Zurich.
We need further proof of this. Only the Keller drawings can provide this. The Locarno/Catania scope has a 150mm front lens compared with Wolf’s 80mm, this on its own makes a big difference when projecting the solar image. The focal length is also very different being 2300mm vs 1100mm. We also do not know what eyepiece design is used on the modern scopes which is another large determining factor. I use a vintage eyepiece in my 40x Wolf pocket replica.
I agree the 40x scope does damage to the sunspot record but it has still been interesting to get an idea of what he could see. I am currently sourcing a vintage 64x eyepiece that is of solid design that can withstand solar projection (no plastic parts). If anyone has 1.25 inch kellner design eyepiece with a focal length of around 8mm for sale please contact me through my website (click on my name)

September 12, 2010 8:59 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
September 12, 2010 at 8:44 pm
We need further proof of this.
Nonsense, Waldmeier reported year after year that Locarno/Catania multiplied by 0.6 matched Zurich multiplied by 0.6.
We also do not know what eyepiece design is used on the modern scopes which is another large determining factor. I use a vintage eyepiece in my 40x Wolf pocket replica.
The only thing that matters is the magnification [and the seeing]. The design is not important as long at the eyepiece is good enough, and they made superb eyepieces in the 19th century.
I agree the 40x scope does damage to the sunspot record but it has still been interesting to get an idea of what he could see.
Of course, although we already know this from Wolfer’s careful and authoritative comparisons over 17 years. Schaefer reports that a very important ingredient is the experience of the observer. The same observer using the same scope will observe twice as many spots after a year of experience [further years do not improve that number]. Also, don’t use photographs as they do not exploit the rare moments of better seeing [unless you take thousands each day and pick the best]. BTW, Wolf [and Wolfer, etc] did not use projection, but a polarizer to cut down on the glare.

September 12, 2010 9:11 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
September 12, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Only the Keller drawings can provide this.
I have Keller’s monthly sunspot numbers since 1996. Comparison with SIDC show good agreement up to ~2001: http://www.leif.org/research/Keller-SIDC.png [a few of the very highest numbers being a bit off].
Thereafter, SIDCs report systematically LOWER numbers, showing the recent undercounting by SIDC. BTW, tomorrow, I’ll be at SIDC http://sidc.oma.be/seminars/index.php so will have opportunity to grill them on this.

Paul Vaughan
September 12, 2010 9:47 pm

Ulric Lyons wrote: “But strange that the dots line up on the vertical but not the horizontal.”
You can’t have the same start & end dates for different length measurements. Changes to lengths require changes to neighboring length(s).

September 12, 2010 9:53 pm

Paul Vaughan says:
September 12, 2010 at 9:47 pm
—————-
The length for cycle 23 [min to min a tad more than 12 years] is now known but not used on your graph [except perhaps the JA value.

September 12, 2010 10:17 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 12, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
September 12, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Only the Keller drawings can provide this.
I have Keller’s monthly sunspot numbers since 1996. Comparison with SIDC show good agreement up to ~2001: http://www.leif.org/research/Keller-SIDC.png [a few of the very highest numbers being a bit off].
Thereafter, SIDCs report systematically LOWER numbers, showing the recent undercounting by SIDC. BTW, tomorrow, I’ll be at SIDC http://sidc.oma.be/seminars/index.php so will have opportunity to grill them on this.

Great, ask them about the eyepieces…its important. And if the Keller’s drawings are available somewhere. I observe all day currently and take lots of pics, esp when vision is good. Will have today’s best pic available soon

rbateman
September 12, 2010 11:11 pm

The modern optical adavantages that Wolf did not enjoy:
Superior Glass formulas (affects chromatic aberrations (requires training to overcome)
Superior lens grinding & polishing (more useable clear aperture)
Superior eyepiece design (correction and FOV advantages)
Coatings (increased transmission and less ghosting interference, which clearly plagued the Kellner design)
And 2 things which no amount of good luck in seeing can ever overcome: AO and Image Stacking/reduction from CCD integrations. These hit way below the belt, in my opinion.
For observers earlier to Wolf, they did not have achromatic eyepieces, just the Ramsden and the Huygens. Lots of training.
Anybody who has used these eyepieces with or without coatings knows what overcoming limitations is all about.
I haven’t even mentioned the really superior designs, like Plossls, Orthoscopics and Erfles.
So, my suggestion is that if SIDC really wants to nail it down, make the observers use Wolf’s uncoated scope with his eypeice of the time (Kellner) in parallel with the modern equipment, and do the calibration accordingly.
Remove all doubt.

September 13, 2010 12:00 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 12, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Also, don’t use photographs as they do not exploit the rare moments of better seeing [unless you take thousands each day and pick the best]. BTW, Wolf [and Wolfer, etc] did not use projection, but a polarizer to cut down on the glare.
Wolf and Wolfer did not use projection?
That’s a major piece of news. So they actually counted what they saw and transposed that into a diagram from memory? I have wondered along with rbateman how Wolf used his pocket scope which now turns out to be very similar to what I am doing (my filter is probably better). The difference between visual and projected might be interesting to gauge.
Today’s image is close to what Wolf would have seen through his 40x pocket scope. The image is taken through a modern eyepiece, the image is sharper than what is viewed through the Kellner eyepiece which cannot be used for good photographic reproduction due to the small eyepiece aperture. I am going on the eyepiece design dates and guessing Wolf used a Kelllner (1849) but he may have used something inferior like a Ramsden. The “modern” Kellner eyepiece is also coated providing a better lens than Wolf’s day.
Soon I will have 64x images available.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/1106_sept_13_4.30UTC.png

September 13, 2010 12:56 am

Geoff Sharp says:
September 12, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Great, ask them about the eyepieces…its important.
As a professional astronomer I tell that for observing sunspots the eyepiece is not important if it is achromatic.
rbateman says:
September 12, 2010 at 11:11 pm
So, my suggestion is that if SIDC really wants to nail it down, make the observers use Wolf’s uncoated scope with his eypeice of the time (Kellner) in parallel with the modern equipment, and do the calibration accordingly.
Remove all doubt.

I don’t think I’m getting across. There is no doubt [only jinki’s]. Keller observes [as he has done the past 50+ years] with THE ORIGINAL WOLF TELESCOPE [EYEPIECE AND ALL] AT CLOSE TO THE ORIGINAL LOCATION.

Paul Vaughan
September 13, 2010 1:30 am

Leif Svalgaard wrote: “The length for cycle 23 [min to min a tad more than 12 years] is now known but not used on your graph [except perhaps the JA value.”
You’ll have to take it up with FCLT:
http://web.dmi.dk/fsweb/solarterrestrial/sunclimate/SCL.txt

Paul Vaughan
September 13, 2010 1:47 am

Ulric Lyons wrote: “Can you explain what “all of the sunspots occurring during the interim” has to do with the time passed from a given minimum, to the following maximum, and to the next minimum.”
It is possible to devise any number of metrics. The one that makes sense will depend on the phenomenon under study. For example, if one is studying a phenomenon that occurs only during maxima…
And there is nothing particularly special about sunspots, except that the series goes back to 1749. Other series could have been used to extract solar cycle phase (but records don’t go back to 1855 when ERSST starts).
Despite the amount of detail appearing in the exchange about sunspot measurement issues, the issue has only a tiny influence on phase measurements.

September 13, 2010 2:11 am

Paul Vaughan says:
September 13, 2010 at 1:30 am
Leif Svalgaard wrote: “The length for cycle 23 [min to min a tad more than 12 years] is now known but not used on your graph [except perhaps the JA value.”
You’ll have to take it up with FCLT:

No, with you. It is the user of data that is responsible for checking the data quality.
Your link to FCLT states:
1996.8 10.0 10.2 1991.80
2007.3 2 10.5 2002.05 <==== should be 2008.9
Solar cycle data for maxima
2000.3 2 10.7 10.5 1994.95
2011.2 2 10.9 2005.75 <==== new estimate 2013.5
Notes:
2 Estimated in Thejll&Lassen (2001)
Thus they used estimates from 2001, which we now know are wrong.

Ulric Lyons
September 13, 2010 2:53 am

Paul Vaughan says:
September 12, 2010 at 9:47 pm
You can’t have the same start & end dates for different length measurements. Changes to lengths require changes to neighboring length(s).
……………………………………………………….
Exactly, maybe its just the scale makes it hard to see the difference in date for each point.

Paul Vaughan
September 13, 2010 3:06 am

Re: Leif Svalgaard
I’m not “using” FCLT’s summaries. I plotted their summaries to quell the confusion of a number of commenters who don’t understand wavelet methods. As indicated, I am using the following (not FCLT): ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/INTERNATIONAL/monthly/
Although my estimates (black, grey, & light grey) run through to 2010, they are affected by edge effect for recent years, as I have indicated.
I appreciate the alert which you have volunteered — and I should point out (for the benefit of anyone trying to follow along) that you have your arrows pointing at the wrong column.

Chris Wright
September 13, 2010 3:10 am

I thought the reception for this was a bit odd. People seemed to be complaining that the author hadn’t told them what conclusions to draw. Surely, it’s perfectly valid to present data or some other finding and let people draw their own conclusions.
However, there is a pretty important – and obvious – conclusion to be drawn. Providing the data and methods described are valid, then the conclusion is fairly explosive. It appears to show a remarkable correlation between solar activity and the climate over the last 100 years.
Over long time periods it is easy to demonstrate a dramatic correlation between solar activity and climate. But it has been claimed that the correlation failed in more recent decades, and so the correlation is probably false. In particular, Lockwood published an important paper a few years ago which apparently showed that the correlation has broken down in recent decades. Ironically, in a more recent paper he demonstrates a strong correlation between falling solar activity and falling temperatures. A logical conclusion would be that, if they correlate when activity is falling, there would almost certainly have to be a similar correlation when activity is rising. But of course, that would contradict the whole basis of AGW.
It would be interesting to compare the graph with CRUTEMP. It seems to correspond pretty well. It shows the three major climate legs: warming 1900 – 1945, cooling 1945-1975 and warming again 1975-2000. The graph also predicts slight cooling post-2000. Of course, this is precisely what has happened, although the cooling – so far – is quite small.
Here’s a small thought experiment. Compare this graph showing correlation with sea temp or CRUTEMP with a graph showing carbon dioxide and CRUTEMP. Which shows the greater and more dramatic correlation?
Sadly, if this correlation is true and has predictive ability, then the world is headed for an extended period of global cooling, unless the sun perks up and gets back to work. It’s global cooling we should fear, not global warming.
Chris

September 13, 2010 3:15 am

Paul Vaughan says:
September 13, 2010 at 3:06 am
I’m not “using” FCLT’s summaries.
That is not what your post says. To remind you:
“2) authors:
FCLT = Friis-Christensen, Lassen, & Thejll
( pv08 = my 2008 “eyeball” adjustments to FCLT )”
Precision in quoting is paramount. If you don’t have that, your credibility suffers.
When ‘caught’ the best damage control is to fess up immediately…

September 13, 2010 4:07 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 12, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Wolf and Wolfer did not use projection?
Kind of tough to do with the handheld pocket telescope 🙂
So they actually counted what they saw and transposed that into a diagram from memory?
No diagrams. Just counted by eye.
Modern observers are at pains not to use equipment better than Wolf’s. This is deliberate.

September 13, 2010 6:25 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 13, 2010 at 4:07 am
Modern observers are at pains not to use equipment better than Wolf’s. This is deliberate.
I can’t believe you are still holding this line. The comparison of specs has been laid out for you. The links below speak for themselves, only the magnification is the same.
http://www.ct.astro.it/sun/instrument.htm
http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-Telescope.png
Have a good look how the Catania scope is set up. Notice there is no tube to heat up that distorts the image. The front lens is nearly twice the size of Wolf’s, this lets in more light which enables more detail. The length of the modern scope is over twice that of Wolf’s, this enables a much larger opening in the eyepiece. The Catania eyepiece focal length would be around 35mm, the Wolf scope would be around 8mm. When projecting a 250 mm solar disk this means the paper is closer to the eyepiece. The closer it is the more detail is seen.
I think a lot of people would also disagree with you regarding your statements on lens quality.

John Finn
September 13, 2010 10:54 am

Chris Wright says:
September 13, 2010 at 3:10 am
I thought the reception for this was a bit odd. People seemed to be complaining that the author hadn’t told them what conclusions to draw. Surely, it’s perfectly valid to present data or some other finding and let people draw their own conclusions.
However, there is a pretty important – and obvious – conclusion to be drawn. Providing the data and methods described are valid, then the conclusion is fairly explosive. It appears to show a remarkable correlation between solar activity and the climate over the last 100 years.

You need to be careful here. The correlation is not simply one of solar activity and temperature. For example, if the next 2 slar cycles were of the same length as SC23 then any prediction from Paul’s analysis would show NO Change in temperatures, i.e. there would be no cooling. If future cycles were longer (which normally means weaker) than SC23 then a rise in temperatures would be predicted. To be fair to Paul he is not claiming any predictive skill, but I’ve noted that a number of posters are failing to understand the SCL’ plots. He needs to provide more detail in his main post.
Sadly, if this correlation is true and has predictive ability, then the world is headed for an extended period of global cooling, unless the sun perks up and gets back to work. It’s global cooling we should fear, not global warming.
Chris

If this correlation has predictive ability then we could end up with quite the opposite of global cooling.

John Finn
September 13, 2010 11:19 am

Paul Vaughan says:
September 12, 2010 at 1:26 pm
……
Re: John Finn
In your example you’d have a flat zero-line with a negative spike in the middle. However let me be absolutely clear: At this stage I am not interested in making forecasts. My current interest remains exploratory data analysis.

It’s ok, Paul, I understand what you’re doing – but I’m not sure others do. Regarding my example: Supporters of the ‘conventional’ SCL/temperature hypothesis (e.g. F-C&L, David Archibald etc) would expect temperatures during the second group of cycles to be much higher than during the first group.
In the other thread you stated there was no paradox. I’m not so sure. According to your analysis a lengthening cycle results in rising temperatures and vice versa. I would suggest this is at odds with the findings of F-C&L, Butler&Johnson, David Archibald and possibly Svensmark – in an indirect way. I’m not sure your SCL/SCL’ orthogonality argument is valid. My example illustrates this.

September 13, 2010 1:17 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
September 13, 2010 at 6:25 am
I think a lot of people would also disagree with you regarding your statements on lens quality.
The quality once it is high enough doesn’t matter compared with the effect of seeing and observer experience [because there is a minimum size of about 1.5″ to a spot or pore. Perhaps the best way to demonstrate this is simply compare the counts of the observers and instruments in question. Now, many people have difficulties following a reasoned arguments that has more the two pieces, so you will have to pay attention [I’ll predict that I’ll fail to get the point across, but lemme give it a try].
I’ll take year of low but steady solar activity a couple of years after minimum – like we have now – I don’t have Keller’s data for 2010 so I’ll use 2007 for which I have good coverage.
Here is the situation:
1) Keller is using Wolf’s old, standard [and superb] telescope with the original optics that Wolf used to set his standard with in 1849-1861.
2) Keller was Waldmeier’s assistant [and actually made a lot of the observations of the Waldmeier part of the series] so the weighting and selection of what to count is identical to Waldmeier’s [which I take to be the standard rather than SIDC because of SIDC’s undercount]. Lastly, Keller multiplies his sunspot number by 0.6 to bring it on Wolf’s scale [defined for 1849-1861].
3) Catania reports both spot and pores in each group and the Catania Relative Sunspot Number is then Rcatania = 10*Gc {at least one pore or spot} + {spots + pores}.
4) Waldmeier has always reported that Rzurich = 0.6 * Rcatania. So we can multiply Rcatania by 0.6 to bring it on the Wolf scale.
5) I surmise that Wolf simply did not count the pores, that is that a group was not counted if there were only pores in it. This means that Wolf’s group count Gw will usually be smaller than Catania’s, Gc. Now, Rwolf =k*[10*Gw +{spots}] with k=1
6) If I’m correct that optics is not an issues, then 0.6*Rcatania, Rwolf, and Rkeller should be ‘about’ equal. I say ‘about’, because the three numbers are based on a different number of days [because of occasional cloudy weather, etc] so we would expect some second order variation. Rkeller may for times with very large spots [e.g. beginning of May 1998] be slightly larger because of the weighting of spots by size.
This is what we get when we do the comparison:
http://www.leif.org/research/Keller-Catania-Wolf.png
As you can see, within the spread expected from missing data, the three counts are virtually identical, QED.
There are nothing like my knowledge, careful numerical analysis, attention to detail, and understanding of the historical events to better bring this to this definitive conclusion.

September 13, 2010 1:21 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 13, 2010 at 1:17 pm
P.S. the three numbers 9.9, 9.2, and 9.3 are the yearly average sunspot numbers for 2007 for the three ‘observers’. Again, not significantly different. BTW, SIDC has 7.5 for 2007 because of the undercount, i.e. SIDC is too low. I may find out tomorrow why. I’ll post a link to my talk later.

September 13, 2010 1:40 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 13, 2010 at 1:17 pm
e.g. beginning of May 1998
P.P.S. should be 2007, not 1998. I also did it for 1998, but is was too active to compare with 2010. The typo slipped by my ‘attention to detail’, but at least I caught it.

Paul Vaughan
September 14, 2010 2:23 am

Re: Leif Svalgaard
Note the verb tenses.
I’m not using FCLT (present tense).
I have indicated that I looked at it (past tense) in 2008 and found the metrics “wholly unsatisfying”.
Currently (present tense), I am using wavelet-derived measures of SCL & SCL’, which is pretty clear.
The reason why FCLT & “pv08” were graphed has also been indicated:
There was too much confusion in the last thread from people who don’t understand wavelet methods.
I dug into my archived files to address confusion which arose in the last thread.
I can add that I also had it in mind (not explicitly stated) to illustrate some of the hazards of “eyeball” methods. I can clarify that, beyond FCLT, I was also not satisfied with what I’ve called “pv08”. Hence the switch to wavelets.
Personally, I was done with FCLT (and adjustments to it, such as the “pv08” example) two years ago (i.e. shortly after I first looked at it [past tense]).
To re-emphasize:
Inclusion of FCLT & “pv08” on the above graphs was strictly to get through to the waveletless crowd.

Paul Vaughan
September 14, 2010 3:06 am

Re: John Finn
John, it is possible that there has been some misunderstanding. I suggest that you think very carefully about this. For example, if you want to challenge the notion of orthogonality of SCL & SCL’, here is what you are up against:
Over the interval 1749-2010:
Morlet 2pi:
0.0021113% of the variance in SCL’ is explained by SCL.
99.9978887% of the variance in SCL’ is NOT explained by SCL.
Morlet 3pi/2:
0.0087877% of the variance in SCL’ is explained by SCL.
99.9912123% of the variance in SCL’ is NOT explained by SCL.
Morlet pi:
0.0445296% of the variance in SCL’ is explained by SCL.
99.9554704% of the variance in SCL’ is NOT explained by SCL.
Who on Earth is going to buy into a challenge against the notion of orthogonality in the face of such stats? Certainly no one sensible.
However, you may be pondering some kind of detrending & temporal lagging. If so, bear in mind that that’s another matter that does not impact upon the definition of orthogonal.
SCL’ is essentially 100% bulletproof against attacks which have incinerated claims about SCL.
Half of the time when a sine wave is positive, a cosine wave is also positive. The other half of the time when a sine wave is positive, a cosine wave is negative. Although there is a 100% systematic relationship between the 2 waves, the correlation is zero.

Paul Vaughan
September 14, 2010 3:22 am

A note that should have been included in my response to Lucy:
Also consider that the Antarctic vortex runs year-round, while Arctic vortex activity spikes annually (in northern hemisphere winter).
The note also relates to comments made by Tim.

Tim Channon
September 14, 2010 6:00 am

Given there is a context of Antarctic circumpolar I have an incomplete unpublished note which contains a plot and mentions this in UAH data. Ignore the rest of it.
RSS will be the same but does not provide data to +-90 degrees. The only major difference between RSS and UAH is the degree of low pass filtering, RSS is arguably showing artefacts which are not there and UAH perhaps filters excessively. Both contain similar errors originating from the mish-mash of satellites used (and Nyquist problems).
This was an incidental finding which I did not expect in the dataset.
Made it available here
http://www.gpsl.net/climate/data/heat-flow.pdf

John Finn
September 14, 2010 10:54 am

Paul Vaughan says:
September 14, 2010 at 3:06 am
Re: John Finn
John, it is possible that there has been some misunderstanding. I suggest that you think very carefully about this. For example, if you want to challenge the notion of orthogonality of SCL & SCL’, here is what you are up against:

Paul
There is no misunderstanding. The orthogonality argument is a red herring. Sine and Cosine are effectively
just ‘out of phase’. The fact there is no mathematical correlation is irrelevant.
I gave you a scenario of 6 solar cycles with SCL= 13,13,13, 10, 10, 10 respectively. You told me that the morlet 2 pi analysis would produce a strtaight line with a short downward spike. I agree. There would be a V-shape just under half along the straight line but the points represented by the 1st and 2nd cycles would be the same as the 5th and 6th cycles , i.e ZERO – implying no change in temperature – apart from the sharp cooling (and rebound).
Do you agree with this?
This runs completely counter to the ‘supposed’ SCL/temperature link. If you asked David Archibald what he expects from the same sequence of cycles (i.e 13,13,13,10,10,10) he would say that the temperatures for the 2nd group of cycles would be ~1.5 deg higher than the first group. The plot would have sort of zig-zag shape.
Paul – It would look nothing like yours. At least, one of you would be wrong – very wrong . I am not trying to challenge the orthogonality of SCL/SCL’ . I am, though, trying to discover whether you or David Archibald (or F-C&L) has come up with anything very meaningful. I’m quite sure that neither of you have managed to explain the surface temerpature trend over the pas century – as your own plot shows.

rbateman
September 14, 2010 10:44 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 13, 2010 at 1:17 pm
No, Leif, that is not how resolving power, optical quality and seeing work in the real world.
The SSN link with the past is in shambles, because you cannot use abstractions to calibrate correctly.
You use 2 pieces of equipment in tandem, and you compare the empirical data, otherwise you are allowing uncertainty to get the better of things.
You may come close, but you can never be sure.

September 14, 2010 11:00 pm

rbateman says:
September 14, 2010 at 10:44 pm
You use 2 pieces of equipment in tandem, and you compare the empirical data, otherwise you are allowing uncertainty to get the better of things.
You may come close, but you can never be sure.

Perhaps read my comment:
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 13, 2010 at 1:17 pm
which is a comparison of empirical data in tandem. I feared in my comment that since the argument had more than two pieces to it, that I would fail to get the message across, and it seems that my prediction about this was correct, sadly enough 🙁

Paul Vaughan
September 16, 2010 2:06 am

John Finn wrote: “The orthogonality argument is a red herring.”
It’s most certainly not a red herring. Total ignorance of SCL’ is more fundamental than any common sense afterthoughts arising after attention has been drawn to it. Also, there is a dimension beyond the sine & cosine wave analogy – i.e. SCL’ is not simply phase-shifted SCL.

John Finn wrote: “You told me that the morlet 2 pi analysis would produce a strtaight line with a short downward spike.”
I made no mention of wavelets (“morlet 2 pi analysis” in your words). One arrives at a string of zeros with a negative spike in the middle by simply differencing (no wavelet analysis necessary).

John Finn wrote: “This runs completely counter to the ‘supposed’ SCL/temperature link.”
None of the ocean regions have SST curves that strongly resemble SCL.

John Finn wrote: “[…] It would look nothing like yours.”
Of course! SCL is orthogonal to SCL’.

John Finn wrote: “At least, one of you would be wrong – very wrong .”
You are crossing a line if you are putting words in my mouth. I am not making claims of causation & predictive capability. I am raising questions. I have been crystal clear that my current interest is in exploring data, not making forecasts.
If someone decides to make forecasts based on SCL’, they will be wise to not ignore things like the southern oscillation, north-south terrestrial asymmetry, land/sea contrasts, polar vortices, the Southern Ocean, and the Humboldt current. ~11 years isn’t the only temporal resolution and the whole globe isn’t the only spatial resolution. Spatiotemporal heterogeneity is relevant.

John, thanks for the spirited exchange. I sincerely appreciate your interest in the topic.
Best Regards.

September 16, 2010 2:43 am

Paul Vaughan says:
September 16, 2010 at 2:06 am
You are crossing a line if you are putting words in my mouth. I am not making claims of causation & predictive capability. I am raising questions.
Questions without a presumed causation are not worth making…

thefordprefect
September 16, 2010 1:05 pm

rbateman says:
September 14, 2010 at 10:44 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 13, 2010 at 1:17 pm
No, Leif, that is not how resolving power, optical quality and seeing work in the real world.
The SSN link with the past is in shambles, because you cannot use abstractions to calibrate correctly.

Well if you are correct all data to 1900/40(?) is invalid. This means the whole article is of no consequence!
Hmmmm!

September 17, 2010 9:00 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 13, 2010 at 1:17 pm
The truth is coming out, the original Wolf 64x telescope does not have the same visibility of the modern telescopes (post 1957). Dr. Svalgaard has been very cunning and hidden the devil in the detail and not properly explained the “weighting factor” he mentions below.
2) Keller was Waldmeier’s assistant [and actually made a lot of the observations of the Waldmeier part of the series] so the weighting and selection of what to count is identical to Waldmeier’s [which I take to be the standard rather than SIDC because of SIDC’s undercount]. Lastly, Keller multiplies his sunspot number by 0.6 to bring it on Wolf’s scale [defined for 1849-1861].
6) If I’m correct that optics is not an issues, then 0.6*Rcatania, Rwolf, and Rkeller should be ‘about’ equal. I say ‘about’, because the three numbers are based on a different number of days [because of occasional cloudy weather, etc] so we would expect some second order variation. Rkeller may for times with very large spots [e.g. beginning of May 1998] be slightly larger because of the weighting of spots by size.

This “weighting” factor is a different way of counting spots invented by Waldmeier. It is a 1-5 range from speck to large spot that the observed speck/spot is multiplied by. According to Dr. Svalgaard and his research Waldmeier created a 22% jump in the sunspot record after 1945 which is attributed to the weighting factor.
This weighting factor is used by Keller. When comparing the Keller values observed on the original Wolf 64x telescope with the current Locarno/Catania values, the 22% weighting factor has to be included to match the modern values.
So there is roughly a 22% seeing difference between the Wolf 64x and Locarno. The SIDC in 1981 continued on with the Locarno observatory as its base reference but does not use the Waldmeier weighting factor.
All of our suspicions have been right all along. Modern technology is a large part of the discrepancy in the sunspot record. The right way to fix it is to remove 22% after 1945 and then come up with a better way of measuring today. The important part is to deal with the speck issue which is not being addressed by Wolfer’s change to the K factor.
This is what we get when we do the comparison:
http://www.leif.org/research/Keller-Catania-Wolf.png
As you can see, within the spread expected from missing data, the three counts are virtually identical, QED.
There are nothing like my knowledge, careful numerical analysis, attention to detail, and understanding of the historical events to better bring this to this definitive conclusion.

A bit over the top Dr. Svalgaard.

September 17, 2010 11:50 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
September 17, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Dr. Svalgaard has been very cunning
This is inappropriate and unworthy of serious consideration.
All of our suspicions have been right all along. Modern technology is a large part of the discrepancy in the sunspot record.
I showed carefully that this is not the case.

September 18, 2010 12:24 am

Geoff Sharp says:
September 17, 2010 at 9:00 pm
The right way to fix it is to remove 22% after 1945
For practical reasons, one should rather add 22% before 1045, as many operational uses involve the SSNs at their present values. I have done that in slide 13 of http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-Seminar-14Sept.pdf

September 18, 2010 12:25 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 18, 2010 at 12:24 am
For practical reasons, one should rather add 2o% before 1945…

September 18, 2010 1:45 am

A simple question for Dr. Svalgaard.
Would the original Wolf 64x telescope record the same sunspot numbers as Lorarno if the Waldmeier “weighting factor” was not applied to the Wolf 64x telescope?

September 18, 2010 2:49 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 18, 2010 at 12:25 am
For practical reasons, one should rather add 2o% before 1945…

It would be more practical to preserve the original record(pre 1945), it has on the whole not been contaminated. But there is a greater challenge, Wolfer changed the system by attempted to equalize back to Wolf by invoking the .6 K factor. This factor was based on the original Wolf 64x telescope and probably was successful during his lifetime . This factor is now irrelevant as the modern telescope will pick up more specks than the Wolf original. The problem also escalates when the speck to spot ratio changes in times of grand minima, very simply the specks need to be eliminated to preserve the record. It would also end the current controversy, the F10.7 values will still wiggle match and will in fact align with the geomagnetic record.

September 18, 2010 6:01 am

Geoff Sharp says:
September 18, 2010 at 1:45 am
Would the original Wolf 64x telescope record the same sunspot numbers as Lorarno if the Waldmeier “weighting factor” was not applied to the Wolf 64x telescope?
Ill-posed, see below.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 18, 2010 at 2:49 am
It would be more practical to preserve the original record(pre 1945)
You know not where-over you speak. There are many operational programs [military, avionics, etc] that require sunspot numbers with their current calibration, so this CANNOT be changed for practical reasons.
But there is a greater challenge, Wolfer changed the system by attempted to equalize back to Wolf by invoking the .6 K factor.
This was Wolfer’s mistake. He should have multiplied the Wolf numbers by 1.67, like Wolf himself did in 1861 and later in 1874. This is the correct way. But Wolfer was afraid to rock the boat [Wolf didn’t have any qualms].
This factor is now irrelevant as the modern telescope will pick up more specks than the Wolf original.
As I have explained so many times, that is not the problem.
The problem also escalates when the speck to spot ratio changes in times of grand minima, very simply the specks need to be eliminated to preserve the record.
The specks are an important part of the record. Eliminating them would make the disagreement with the F10.7 record even worse.
It would also end the current controversy
There is really no controversy, just you not knowing what you are doing and in addition pushing an agenda.
the F10.7 values will still wiggle match and will in fact align with the geomagnetic record.
As I just pointed out, the F10.7 discrepancy would get worse as it is that too few spots are counted; eliminating the specks would that even fewer and the problem even worse. The geomagnetic record matches the F10.7 perfectly after and 1947, so this will also apply to that record.
Have to run now, but when I come back, I’ll elucidate the history [again] of the sunspot number and how to count it correctly.

September 18, 2010 8:23 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 18, 2010 at 6:01 am
How do you answer that…other than we have a mad scientist in our mist.
The initial question remains unanswered.

September 18, 2010 8:48 am

oops dropped the d in midst.
But, when you come back perhaps you can explain how the overall record will not align with a 22% cut after 1945. Wolf used the geomagnetic record to verify his reconstruction prior to his record. That is now set in stone according to your opinion.
Waldmeier then decided to change the rules, and introduced a false step that would be completely apparent if we had F10.7 records going back over the same period. This step has to be dealt with.

September 19, 2010 2:28 am

Geoff Sharp says:
September 18, 2010 at 8:23 am
How do you answer that…other than we have a mad scientist in our mist.
oops dropped the d in midst.

Your ‘mist’ sounds eminently more plausible.
This step has to be dealt with.
It can be dealt with simply by increasing all pre-1945 numbers by 22%.
Here is the whole story:
Before 1861 Wolf used the superb Fraunhofer x64 refractor to set the standard. For several years after 1860 Wolf was engaged in the Geodetic Survey of all Switzerland and was often away. In order not to disrupt the sunspot series by prolonged absences, Wolf took to use a smaller, portable x40 ‘pocket’ telescope which he eventually used exclusively, letting this assistant Wolfer from ~1877 observe with the x64. Wolf was well aware that the x40 did not show all the spots that he would count [plus the many even smaller ones that he wouldn’t count anyway] with the x64, so Wolf increased all x40 counts by 50% [In particular this means that the x40 did not set the ‘threshold’ for what should be counted with the standard x64]. Also in 1861 Wolf summarily doubled all values before ~1800 that he had derived using Staudacher’s drawings because that would bring the count into better agreement with the magnetic needle]. Using the same argument, Wolf in 1874 increased all values before his own observations started in 1849 by 25% based on new magnetic data from Milan since 1835.
Wolfer realized that Wolf’s criterion for what to count was too subjective and proposed to [and did for his own measurements] count everything that could be seen with a given scope. Based on 17 years of simultaneous measurements, Wolfer [after Wolf’s death in 1893] found that multiplying his all-inclusive counts by 0.6 would bring them into agreement [on a statistical basis – not on a day-by-day basis] with Wolf’s values. This was a mistake. Rather than lowing the numbers, they should have been increased by a factor of 1/0.6=1.67, just as Wolf increased the numbers in 1861 and 1874. Had he done that, we might not now have all the discussion about the 0.6, because that factor would have been quietly forgotten, just like nobody today worries [and most don’t even know] about the factors 2.0 and 1.25 that Wolf applied to the early data. But perhaps there was by 1893 a ‘user base’ that might object to such correction.
Wolfer’s successor Brunner carried on Wolfer’s count faithfully using the x64, so no discontinuity was introduced. Waldmeier who took over in 1945 was inexperienced with the x64 and wrongly [as far as I can discover from reading all the thousands of pages of the Astronomische Mitteilungen from Zurich] believed that Wolfer [since 1882] had used a weighting scheme counting the smallest specks once, pores twice, ordinary spots thrice, and larger spots 5 times. The weighting schema that was applied to x64 counts [which was always used for the sunspot number, even as Waldmeier used larger telescopes in his studies of filaments and faculae].
The weighting schema introduces an [artificial] upward jump of some 20% of the sunspot number. It would be best to compensate for that by increasing the earlier numbers by that factor [following Wolf’s procedure of adjusting earlier data] to maintain the current calibration of the sunspot number [which is used by operational programs – military, avionics, satellites, etc].
At the end of 1978 Waldmeier retired and the custody of the sunspot series was transferred to SIDC in Brussels. Waldmeier’s assistant, Hans-Uwe Keller continued observing [to the present] with the original x64 using Waldmeier’s weighting scheme [as far as I know – the sources just say that he ‘continued the series the same way’]. SIDC used various methods [including Keller’s overlapping data] and observations from Locarno to harmonize their calibration with Waldmeier’s. They were partly successful in achieving this, although comparison with F10.7 may indicate a small [5%] change. Later, about 2001, there has been a downward jump of 12-15% in the SIDC calibration, which are now undercounting the spots compared to NOAA and all the other dozen organizations counting spots [including Keller]. The reason for this is under investigation, but there is no doubt that the SIDC count is now too low [even SIDC as per my recent visit, does not dispute that].
Now to your question:
“Would the original Wolf 64x telescope record the same sunspot numbers as Locarno if the Waldmeier “weighting factor” was not applied to the Wolf 64x telescope?”
According to Waldmeier, Locarno shows the same number of spots and pores as the x64. To get from those counts to a Sunspot number, they both have to be treated the same way, weighted and scaled by 0.6. One must assume that Waldmeier did this. But the question doesn’t matter as Locarno was [and in isolation is] not used to derive the SSN.

September 19, 2010 7:20 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 2:28 am

More “war & peace”
Man up Dr. Svalgaard, the modern record is greatly influenced by the increased seeing power of superior telescope advancement. Your reluctance to admit the truth says a lot about your scientific credential.

September 19, 2010 11:41 am

Geoff Sharp says:
September 19, 2010 at 7:20 am
the modern record is greatly influenced by the increased seeing power of superior telescope advancement.
There is no evidence of that. On the contrary, observers strive for using instruments comparable to Wolf’s. Furthermore, the geomagnetic record shows that [apart from Waldmeier’s discontinuity] there is no ‘inflation’ of the modern record. On the contrary, the modern numbers are too low. Both of these statements I have substantiated several times. End of discussion.

September 19, 2010 12:32 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
September 18, 2010 at 1:45 am
Would the original Wolf 64x telescope record the same sunspot numbers as Lorarno if the Waldmeier “weighting factor” was not applied to the Wolf 64x telescope?
BTW, it is obvious from this recent drawing that Locarno applies the Waldmeier weighting:
http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2010/loc-d20100918.JPG

September 20, 2010 7:11 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
September 18, 2010 at 1:45 am
Would the original Wolf 64x telescope record the same sunspot numbers as Lorarno if the Waldmeier “weighting factor” was not applied to the Wolf 64x telescope?
BTW, it is obvious from this recent drawing that Locarno applies the Waldmeier weighting:
http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2010/loc-d20100918.JPG

Yes, and you have only just found that out. But you are jumping too quick, I would wait for my report as it seems it’s a partial use of the Waldmeier system. The top and bottom end are being discounted. Here is a sneak preview.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/Loc-d20100917_detail.png
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/OAC_D_20100917_062000_detail.png

September 20, 2010 10:29 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
September 20, 2010 at 7:11 pm
as it seems it’s a partial use of the Waldmeier system. The top and bottom end are being discounted.
No, it is exactly the same system. Sergio ensures that.

September 20, 2010 10:42 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
September 20, 2010 at 7:11 pm
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/Loc-d20100917_detail.png
As I have pointed out, it takes years of training to count sunspots. Cagnuti is an observer ‘in training’ and his counts should not be taken as representative. “who works on it every day needs years to learn how to understand the images and to count the sunspots” http://www.leif.org/EOS/Sunspot-Counting.pdf
So, eliminate Cagnuti and concentrate on the main observer who has kept the record over the past half-century.

September 20, 2010 11:08 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
September 20, 2010 at 7:11 pm
it seems it’s a partial use of the Waldmeier system. The top and bottom end are being discounted.
Marco Cagnotti is an observer ‘in training’. Don’t use his counts for anything. If you do anyway, you show your colors. As I have told you repeatedly, it takes years to learn how to do this. E.g. from http://www.leif.org/EOS/Sunspot-Counting.pdf “since who works on it every day needs years to learn how to understand the images and to count the sunspots.”
Since Locarno was founded and owned by Zurich it was implicit that they use Waldmeier’s system.

September 21, 2010 3:42 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
I am not only looking at Marco Cagnotti’s counts, but it does raise the question. He has been counting in a professional manner since about January this year. If you think his methods are not following the standard, is the standard itself in question?
I have emailed Sergio asking him how the the method may have changed since the Waldmeier days as he has stated in his yearly updates.

September 21, 2010 6:47 am

Geoff Sharp says:
September 21, 2010 at 3:42 am
If you think his methods are not following the standard, is the standard itself in question?
Of course not. It simply means he hasn’t gotten it yet. Remember it takes years to learn. At this point my info from Locarno says that Marco simply draws what he sees and provides a raw count [i.e. not weighted].

September 21, 2010 8:02 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 21, 2010 at 6:47 am
Geoff Sharp says:
September 21, 2010 at 3:42 am
If you think his methods are not following the standard, is the standard itself in question?
Of course not. It simply means he hasn’t gotten it yet. Remember it takes years to learn. At this point my info from Locarno says that Marco simply draws what he sees and provides a raw count [i.e. not weighted].

He hasn’t got it yet???
Kinda like waiting for the President to feel his way into the job, lose a few countries on the way but that’s OK.
Marco’s results do appear to be sporadic, and do not offer the same consistency as Sergio. To me this sort of training should be happening in the background and governed by his peers, not put out there where records are laid in stone and used by following generations.
I received two amazing emails from Zurich today, you have been so wrong Dr. Svalgaard. The calibration for the modern system which includes the telescope upgrades happened way before we thought possible. Wolfer was a man ahead of his time.

September 21, 2010 8:17 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 21, 2010 at 6:47 am
At this point my info from Locarno says that Marco simply draws what he sees and provides a raw count [i.e. not weighted].
On the other hand, on todays drawing Marco seems to have applied weighting. Just shows how hard it is to get correct information even when you ask. Anyway, as Marco is still ‘in training’, you should not use any drawing by him. P.S. has SIDC reacted to your request?

September 21, 2010 8:50 am

Geoff Sharp says:
September 21, 2010 at 8:02 am
Marco’s results do appear to be sporadic, and do not offer the same consistency as Sergio.
That is what is to be expected by a trainee.
To me this sort of training should be happening in the background and governed by his peers, not put out there where records are laid in stone and used by following generations.
Any real-time data is always preliminary and subject to correction at a later time. Nobody is dumb enough to think that this is set in stone.
I received two amazing emails from Zurich today, you have been so wrong Dr. Svalgaard. The calibration for the modern system which includes the telescope upgrades happened way before we thought possible. Wolfer was a man ahead of his time.
As you have been economical with the truth in the past, you should provide documentation for what you claim. Zurich has since Waldmeier [wrongly] believed that Wolfer introduced the weighting system, see slide 2 of http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-Seminar-14Sept.pdf
This is incorrect as one can verify by reading the original papers [they are (almost) all on my website http://www.leif.org/EOS/Wolf-xxxx.pdf, where xxxx is a Roman numeral, e.g. LXXXIV [this is the first of Wolfer’s reports].

September 21, 2010 9:19 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 21, 2010 at 8:17 am
On the other hand, on todays drawing Marco seems to have applied weighting. Just shows how hard it is to get correct information even when you ask.
Yeah…how he managed an 8(plus 10) for 1108 is questionable. One thing I have learned over the past few days is that there is an equilibrium of counting methods between Locarno and Catania. They have different methods, Locarno counting counting a region and applying the Waldmeier factor, while Catania count individual umbrea plus the extra specks the seem to observe.

September 21, 2010 9:30 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 21, 2010 at 8:50 am
As you have been economical with the truth in the past, you should provide documentation for what you claim

With that sort of response I might make you wait.

September 21, 2010 9:30 am

Geoff Sharp says:
September 21, 2010 at 9:19 am
Yeah…how he managed an 8(plus 10) for 1108 is questionable.
I don’t know where the 10 comes from. The 8 is clear. There are two main spots of 3 each and two tiny ones of 1 each. This is correct. You cannot question an observer. You can disagree and use a different method, that is all.
They have different methods, Locarno counting a region and applying the Waldmeier factor, while Catania count individual umbrea plus the extra specks they seem to observe.
You are finally catching on to what I have been trying to teach you for some time.

September 21, 2010 9:32 am

Geoff Sharp says:
September 21, 2010 at 9:19 am
Yeah…how he managed an 8(plus 10) for 1108 is questionable.
I don’t know where the 10 comes from. The 8 is clear. There are two main spots of 3 each and two tiny ones of 1 each. This is correct. You cannot ‘question’ an observer. You can disagree and use a different method, that is all.
They have different methods, Locarno counting a region and applying the Waldmeier factor, while Catania count individual umbrea plus the extra specks they seem to observe.
You are finally catching on to what I have been trying to teach you for some time. Catania doing just what Wolfer prescribed.

September 21, 2010 10:26 am

Geoff Sharp says:
September 21, 2010 at 9:30 am
With that sort of response I might make you wait.
probably not worth waiting for since you don’t produce anything.

Tim Channon
September 21, 2010 10:35 am

“Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 11:41 am

comparable to Wolf’s. Furthermore, the geomagnetic record shows that [apart from Waldmeier’s discontinuity] there is no ‘inflation’ of the modern record. On the contrary, the modern numbers are too low. Both of these statements I have substantiated several times. End of discussion.”
The magnetic change which is leading to contrast reduction today must mean there is an increasing deviation from the proxy.
That suggests end of discussion is misplaced.

September 21, 2010 10:49 am

Tim Channon says:
September 21, 2010 at 10:35 am
The magnetic change which is leading to contrast reduction today must mean there is an increasing deviation from the proxy.
In fact there is: see figure 14 of http://www.leif.org/research/SHINE-2010-Microwave-Flux.pdf
That suggests end of discussion is misplaced.
The specific discussion was about ‘inflation’ of the modern count. If anything, as I said, the modern count is too low, because it has become harder to see the small spots that makes up most of the sunspot number.

Tim Channon
September 21, 2010 5:38 pm

Leif,
There might be groans from you.
I am reluctant to show what follows but I suppose the matter needs some fresh air.
A bit scruffy, quickly put together.
Say now, I do not know, nothing is being claimed, mighty curious though.
http://www.gpsl.net/climate/data/mgii-ice-2010-09.pdf

September 22, 2010 5:08 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 21, 2010 at 10:26 am
Geoff Sharp says:
September 21, 2010 at 9:30 am
With that sort of response I might make you wait.
probably not worth waiting for since you don’t produce anything.

Your arrogance is almost as big as your ego….I wonder if your big enough to admit you were wrong?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/18/suns-magnetics-remain-in-a-funk-sunspots-may-be-on-their-way-out/#comment-489210

September 22, 2010 8:23 am

Geoff Sharp says:
September 22, 2010 at 5:08 am
“probably not worth waiting for since you don’t produce anything.”
Your arrogance is almost as big as your ego….I wonder if your big enough to admit you were wrong?

See my debunking of this over at the “Sun’s magnetic…” thread.
You claimed to have received two emails from Zurich. Yet you didn’t, but cite two other emails, none from Zurich… Should we chalk that up to simple sloppiness or is there more behind this…

September 22, 2010 8:27 am

Tim Channon says:
September 21, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Say now, I do not know, nothing is being claimed, mighty curious though.
Some of these problems are instrumental, e.g MgII:
http://www.leif.org/research/MgII%20Calibration.pdf

Tim Channon
September 22, 2010 4:58 pm

Perhaps not the circumstances to discuss that.