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.
[1a] indicates smoothing over the annual cycle.
ERSST = extended reconstructed sea surface temperature
0-90N = northern hemisphere
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.
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?
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].
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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
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
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…
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
Perhaps not the circumstances to discuss that.