Guest Posting by Ira Glickstein
Santa brought us a new Sunspot prediction to be added to NASA’s incredibly high series of at least five ill-fated predictions starting in 2006. NASA’s latest peak Sunspot Number for Solar Cycle #24 (SC24) is down 60% from their original, but it still seems a bit too high, judging by David Archibald’s recent WUWT posting that analogizes SC24 and SC25 to SC5 and SC6 which peaked around 50, during the cold period (Dalton minimum) of the early 1800’s.
According to Yogi Berra “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” Team leader Dr. Mausumi Dikpati of NASA’s National Center for Atmospheric Research and Solar physicist Dr. David Hathaway of the National Space Science & Technology Center have most likely learned that lesson well, having predicted, back in March 2006, that SC24 would start by the end of 2006 or early 2007 and would peak 30% to 50% higher than SC23, which would yield counts of 156 to 180. The latest prediction is 64 (I love their precision :^) but I predict it will have to be reduced further, kind of like an after-Christmas sale :^)
[NOTE added 28 Dec 9:45PM. See clarification comment by: John from CA, December 28, 2010 at 1:44 pm. I was mistaken in conflating NASA with NOAA in the graphic and discussion, wrongly assuming they coordinated their Sunspot predictions. The base chart, as labeled, is from NOAA but the predictions are from Dikpati and/or Hathaway at NASA, but later ones, on a NASA website, may be personal, not official. Thanks John from CA and sorry for my ignorance of government organization. Ira]
My graphic traces the downward progression of NASA Sunspot predictions, superimposed over NASA’s NOAA’s latest chart of actual Sunspot Numbers. SC23 is shown from its peak in 2000 to its demise in 2009, along with the rise of SC24 up to the latest November 2010 data. The red hoop, peaking at 90, is left over from their previous prediction and should be replaced by their new prediction in January. [Click graphic for larger version].
As indicated, SC23 peaked at a count of 120 around January 2000. It is instructive to read NASA’s March 2006 predictions (and somewhat humorous until you realize we paid for it). Some direct quotes [emphasis added]:
“The next sunspot cycle will be 30% to 50% stronger than the previous one,” [Dikpati] says… Dikpati’s prediction is unprecedented. In nearly-two centuries since the 11-year sunspot cycle was discovered, scientists have struggled to predict the size of future maxima—and failed. Solar maxima can be intense, as in 1958, or barely detectable, as in 1805, obeying no obvious pattern.
The key to the mystery, Dikpati realized years ago, is a conveyor belt on the sun…
Hathaway … explains: “First, remember what sunspots are–tangled knots of magnetism generated by the sun’s inner dynamo. A typical sunspot exists for just a few weeks. Then it decays, leaving behind a ‘corpse’ of weak magnetic fields.”…
“The top of the conveyor belt skims the surface of the sun, sweeping up the magnetic fields of old, dead sunspots. The ‘corpses’ are dragged down at the poles to a depth of 200,000 km where the sun’s magnetic dynamo can amplify them. Once the corpses (magnetic knots) are reincarnated (amplified), they become buoyant and float back to the surface.” Presto—new sunspots!
All this happens with massive slowness. “It takes about 40 years for the belt to complete one loop,” says Hathaway. The speed varies “anywhere from a 50-year pace (slow) to a 30-year pace (fast).”
When the belt is turning “fast,” it means that lots of magnetic fields are being swept up, and that a future sunspot cycle is going to be intense. This is a basis for forecasting: “The belt was turning fast in 1986-1996,” says Hathaway. “Old magnetic fields swept up then should re-appear as big sunspots in 2010-2011.”
Like most experts in the field, Hathaway has confidence in the conveyor belt model and agrees with Dikpati that the next solar maximum should be a doozy. But he disagrees with one point. Dikpati’s forecast puts Solar Max at 2012. Hathaway believes it will arrive sooner, in 2010 or 2011.
“History shows that big sunspot cycles ‘ramp up’ faster than small ones,” he says. “I expect to see the first sunspots of the next cycle appear in late 2006 or 2007—and Solar Max to be underway by 2010 or 2011.”
Who’s right? Time will tell. Either way, a storm is coming.
Did Dikpati and Hathaway honestly believed they had cracked the Sunspot code that had eluded science for two centuries? In hindsight, we all know they were wrong in their heady predictions of a “doozy”. (A doozy, according to Webster is “an extraordinary one of its kind”. NASA expected SC24 to be extraordinarily intense. But it is shaping up to be extraordinarily weak, so they at least get credit for using the correct word :^)
But, were they being honest? Well, Hathaway had long been aware of the relationship between Sunspot counts and climate, writing:
Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715. … This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the ‘Little Ice Age’ when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past. The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research.
Is it possible that their prediction was skewed to the high side by the prevalent opinion, in the Inconvenient Truth year of 2006, that Global Warming was “settled science”. Could it be that they felt pressured to please their colleagues and superiors by predicting a Sunspot doozy that would presage a doozy of a warm spell?
It seems to me that NASA has a long history of delayed Sunspot predictions, particularly when the trend was downward. They seem to have waited until the actual counts forced them to do so.
Have a look at the graphic. SC23 SC24 [thanks Steeptown December 27, 2010 at 11:37 pm] was supposed to start by early 2007, but it did not. Yet, it took them until October 2008 to revise their prediction of a later start and lower peak (137) and then they dropped it further in January 2009 (predicting a peak of 104 to occur in early 2012).
I am not any kind of expert on Sunspots, yet it was clear to me, nearly two years ago, that 104 was way too high so I predicted a peak of 80 and moved the date of that peak to mid-2013. NASA eventually reduced their peak to 90, and just this month down to 64, and they moved the peak date to mid-2013. My latest prediction is 60, to occur in early 2014, but I believe I may still be a bit too high.
With apologies to Pete Seeger:
Where have all the sunspots gone? NA-SA search-ing,
Where have all the sunspots go-ne? NASA don’t know.
Where have all the sunspots gone? Global Cooling, anyone?
Will NASA ever learn? Will NA-SA ev-er learn?
Where has all the carbon gone? Green-house gas-es,
Where has all the carbon go-ne? Come down as snow!
Where has all the carbon gone? Heating houses, everyone,
Will NASA ever learn? Will NA-SA ev-er learn?
Where has Global Warming gone? Point not tip-ping,
Where has Global Warming go-ne? Its gonna slow.
Where has Global Warming gone? Normal seasons of the Sun,
Will NASA ever learn? Will NA-SA ev-er learn?
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 30, 2010 at 3:30 pm
The official sunspot counts are too low. for two reasons:
1) the SIDC values have drifted lower since 2001 compared to all other observers
2) the number of spots per unit of solar F10.7 flux is decreasing, see http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Microwaves-at-23-24-Minimum.pdf
One should not jump to conspiracy theories when one does not know the facts.
It is tiring having to continually point out Leif’s incorrect statements that he continues to display even after the facts have been presented. This is a science blog where propaganda should not cloud the facts. In the interest of proper science I will continue to rebuff his incorrect statements (however boring it may be to some).
1. The SIDC does not drift lower compared to all other observers after 2001. NOAA would be considered a major observer, since 2001 the SIDC value has tracked at 0.6 of NOAA. In fact after 2001 is where the two organizations came together as can be seen HERE.
2. The spot to F10.7 flux ratio is not decreasing. It only does so according to Leif’s version of the F10.7 record. When the standard F10.7 flux values are used there is little divergence.
I emailed the head of the SIDC some time ago re these findings. He was very appreciative.
Robuk says:
December 30, 2010 at 4:39 pm
I would say that coverage is pretty good.
I would not say that 24 days with date out of 182 makes for a reliable count. But you are missing the point entirely, even if there were an observation every day, we don’t know what the calibration is. We don’t know if a reported number of 50 was actually 80 or 30.
No, its a contest, the first to see a spot, doesn`t matter how big, its reported then classified later.
Nonsense, the observers usually send in their data once a month and usually don’t know what the others see.
Geoff Sharp says:
December 30, 2010 at 4:17 pm
The only way to do a comparison is to have the same observer count through both telescopes
No, use your brain. If one count twice as much as another it just means that his k-factor is half of the other guy’s. And Waldmeier was a control freak and often went to Locarno to check on the observations.
Do you know if Locarno was using the Waldmeier weighting method back in the early days pre SIDC?
Locarno was founded by Zurich so went by Zurich rules, and I gave you a list of k-values for Locarno since 1945. Cortesi started in 1957 and his k-value has been constant 0.59+/-0.02 ever since.
Cortesi is the main man who took over in 1981 when Locarno became the standard, he also emailed me informing me of the resolution difference between the two telescopes. /i>
What was the email you sent, and what was his reply? Have you forgotten the email from Clette that says that the telescope doesn’t matter?
A lot of his values are sub 0.6.
his k-values 1957-1978:
0.53, 0.58, 0.58, 0.59, 0.58, 0.59, 0.65, 0.6, 0.6, 0.6, 0.6, 0.66, 0.57, 0.62, 0.58, 0.57, 0.61, 0.6, 0.59, 0.59, 0.57, 0.58
And it is still around 0.59 now.
The telescope aperture seeing factor would put upward pressure on the count
What you can see depends on the magnification and the seeing, not on the aperture. And you ignore that the count today is too low, not too high. And that the k-factor has been constant since 1957.
as is suggested in Cortesi’s numbers during the low cycle 20.
during cycle 20, Cortesi’s k-factor was 0.599.
Geoff Sharp says:
December 30, 2010 at 5:21 pm
1. The SIDC does not drift lower compared to all other observers after 2001. NOAA would be considered a major observer, since 2001 the SIDC value has tracked at 0.6 of NOAA. In fact after 2001 is where the two organizations came together as can be seen HERE.
No, what you show is that before 2001, the k-factor for NOAA was higher [0.66] than after 2001 [0.61]. This is clearly shown here: http://www.leif.org/research/NOAA-vs-SIDC.png
2. The spot to F10.7 flux ratio is not decreasing. It only does so according to Leif’s version of the F10.7 record. When the standard F10.7 flux values are used there is little divergence.
Ken Tapping discovered the divergence using his [Canadian F10.7] values. Here is a plot using only the official values: http://www.leif.org/research/Canadian%20F107%20flux%20and%20SSN.png showing the same thing: Ri being too low in SC23-24
Both of these things have been shown to you multiple times, but you seem fact-resistant. Perhaps this time, you’ll acknowledge the facts.
I emailed the head of the SIDC some time ago re these findings. He was very appreciative.
Geoff Sharp says:
December 30, 2010 at 5:21 pm
I emailed the head of the SIDC some time ago re these findings. He was very appreciative.
You were telling him about my findings [e.g. Waldmeier jump], and, of course, he was appreciative as any person would be in his situation. He also told you in no uncertain terms that the seeing was setting the limit [and also that there is a minimum size of a spot] and that therefore the telescope was not a factor. And last, but not least, he asked not to used to promote your ‘ideas’.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 30, 2010 at 6:05 pm
I am away for at least a day, but will come back.
Geoff Sharp says:
December 30, 2010 at 7:11 pm
I am away for at least a day, but will come back.
Happy New Year, then. Hope that you have learned something from this exchange and possibly shall update your website based on this newfound insight.
Seeing conditions during the day are a lot better than what Leif says:
Paris 17 April 2010 h. 10: 1=0.79″ 2=1.28″
Paris 24 April 2010 h. 9: 1=1.23″ 2=0.86″
Locarno 9 August 2008 h. 17: 1=0.76″ 2=0.60″
Locarno 9 August 2008 h. 17 (2): 1=0.87″ 2=0.95″
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 30, 2010 at 2:47 pm
2010 is the warmest year yet … or so it is said,
And you believe that drivel.
Nasa,
For reasons no one understands, the sunspot cycle REVIVED itself in the early 18th century and has carried on since with the familiar 11-year period.
So the Maunda was one on its own was it,
The link below appears to show that the solar cycle was still ACTIVE throughout the maunda as it was during the Daulton and did NOT revive itself, so no difference there.
We don’t know if a reported number of 50 was actually 80 or 30.
You are suggesting that there was a normal count in the daulton and that todays count is normal so NO sun climate link.
You can`t rubbish the Maunda data but it appears you are intent in discrediting anything to do with the Daulton, which you are well aware links the three events together, the Maunda, the Daulton and the present.
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/Miyahara_AG06.pdf
rbateman says:
December 29, 2010 at 9:20 pm
The most significant thing about a large sunspot is that it takes a great number of very small ones to equal it in total area.
SC24 Sunspot area is barely up where SC22/23 bottomed out.
The little spreckles don’t make much weight in the scales.
Nicht ser gut.
There’s been a lot of discussion about numbers of sun spots and whether or not specks would have been counted in the past but this leads me to a (possibly) naive question from a novice.
Does size matter and is it taken into consideration?
Jcarels says:
December 31, 2010 at 6:05 am
Seeing conditions during the day are a lot better than what Leif says
The numbers you quote relate to a video camera with exposure times of the order of 1/100 second [brief moments of good seeing occur]. Seeing of 1″ does occur, but only 1% of the time. Typical seeing is much worse. The Mt. Wilson Solar Seeing Scale is a rough guide to how seeing can vary:
1 = Solar image looks like a “Circular Saw Blade.” Completely out of focus. Limb motion and resolution greater than 10 arcsec. Smaller sunspots will not be seen.
2 = Solar image is always fuzzy and out of focus. No sharp periods. Limb motion and resolution in the 5 to 10 arcsec range.
3 = Solar image about half the time sharp and half the time fuzzy. Some short periods where granulation is visible. Limb motion and resolution in the 3 arcsec range.
4 = Solar image more often sharp than not. Granulation almost always visible. Limb motion and resolution in the 1 to 2 arcsec range.
5 = Solar image looks like an “engraving.” Extremely sharp and steady. Limb motion and resolution 1 arcsec or better.
Seeing 5 is very rare. The average seeing is about 3.
But all of this is really not relevant. What is relevant are the actual sunspot numbers reported by the observers, no matter how arrived at [observations, magic, whatever]. The data shows that if you multiply raw Locarno [that is what is observed, or rather reported, before manipulating the data, e.g. here: http://www.specola.ch/e/drawings.html ] by 0.6 you get the same numbers as reported by SIDC. The latter is 0.6 times the numbers seen using the 80 mm telescope that was used by Wolf and every observer at Zurich ever since. So, raw Locarno = raw 80 mm count. As simple as that. All the rest are strawmen.
Robuk says:
December 31, 2010 at 6:49 am
You are suggesting that there was a normal count in the daulton and that todays count is normal so NO sun climate link.
I’m saying we don’t know precisely what the count was. Contemporary observers reported a very active sun.
There is definitely a sun-climate link. The sun has a barely measurable influence on the climate of the order of a tenth or two of a degree.
Mr Green Genes says:
December 31, 2010 at 6:55 am
Does size matter and is it taken into consideration?
Yes and no. The original sunspot count was made without regard to the size of the spots. In 1945, sunspot counters decided to weight the count by the size of the spots. This destroyed the homogeneity of the record [the sunspots number since then is 20% higher than they would have been if the original method had been followed] and lead people to believe that solar activity in the last half of the 10th century was large than it actually was.
LEIF: Happy New Year to you and to one and all. Fantastically informative thread, if only to find out that where we are is where we should be! Spent the entire morning reading all of it. Leif wields an axe sharper than Gimli’s in Lord of the Rings but has shown enourmous patience here IMHO. I read this as it is relevant to the AGW topic one way or another. While 2010 was warm, considering we have a dead sun and while i’ve read a minimal sun coinciding with a Pacific Decadel Oscilation will bring the heavy winters, the cold/snow records now being made suggests we are past a PDO/Minimum correlation
(otherwise they wouldn’t be breaking 100, 200+ year records, etc.)
My question for LEIF:
1. Do you see a connection between all these Sun spot records and climate over the Eons
2. Scarfetta accused you of having an agenda here at WUWT?(i can dig it out if you want me to)? Was his accusation that you refuse to allow for a coupling of the Sun to climate(in the face of what he feels is hard evidence to suggest otherwise I suppose)?
3. If it was shown the Sun did drive climate variation, what would be, do you think, the best candidate for a mechanism?
And be nice me. I often show my wife your responses to show her i’m not completely wasting my time hanging out here at WUWT. I’ve tried to explain it’s entertainment value, which she doesn’t get, and it’s interesting nature, which she doesn’t get, and it’s got celebrities(for which I might need a picture of you!)
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 31, 2010 at 8:07 am
lead people to believe that solar activity in the last half of the 10th century was large than it actually was.
The 20th, of course. I’ll move my keyboard to the left half an inch…
johnnythelowery says:
December 31, 2010 at 8:22 am
My question for LEIF:
1. Do you see a connection between all these Sun spot records and climate over the Eons
Yes and no. There is certainly a 0.1-0.2 degree connection, but no more, IMHO. This is an unpopular view, so people cannot accuse me of being an exponent for mainstream, consensus group-think 🙂
2. Scarfetta accused you of having an agenda here at WUWT?(i can dig it out if you want me to)? Was his accusation that you refuse to allow for a coupling of the Sun to climate(in the face of what he feels is hard evidence to suggest otherwise I suppose)?
I don’t know what that agenda would be [and am I not the best to know?]
3. If it was shown the Sun did drive climate variation, what would be, do you think, the best candidate for a mechanism?
It does contribute to climate variations [but at a tiny level at this point in time, but just wait a billion years…]. If I knew of a mechanism [or could think of one that makes sense] I would probably believe [contrary to evidence] that the Sun had a major influence.
(for which I might need a picture of you!)
http://www.leif.org/research/Pretty-me.png
The ‘pretty’ just refers to comparison with another picture that was ‘awful’.
A picture was requested by Nature Magazine doing an article on solar cycles and Pretty-me [taken by my son Mikael – give credit where credit is due] was what they used.
Two Irishmen in a pub: one says to the other “Hey, I saw a spot on the Sun today” and the other goes “yeah, that was me. He was rude to his mother!!!”
Thanks much. I think she likes the ‘Firth Colin in Girls blouse’ look but i’ll have a go!
Scarfetta accused you of having an agenda here at WUWT? Was his accusation that you refuse to allow for a coupling of the Sun to climate(in the face of what he feels is hard evidence to suggest otherwise I suppose)?
I think that`s about it for me, I think Leif is a true believer, the AGW kind.
Jcarels says:
December 31, 2010 at 6:05 am
Seeing conditions during the day are a lot better than what Leif says
Seeing 5 is very rare. The average seeing is about 3.
I forgot to mention that Locarno uses the inverse of the Mt. Wilson Scale, with 1 being perfect and 5 very bad. On each Locarno drawing the seeing is indicated. Typical value is 3. SIDC alsouses the Mt. Wilson seeing scale [often indicated on Locarno drawings too].
The k-factor depends on seeing as follows [for Kandili Observatory http://www.springerlink.com/content/q36kv02740646965/ 25 cm image]:
seeing 1 [bad]: k=0.96
2: k= 0.95
3: k= 0.90
4: k= 0.83
5: k= 0.74
A k smaller than 0.6 means that you see more spots than Wolfer [with his 80 mm scope]. A k larger than 0.6 means that you see fewer spots than Wolfer.
Robuk says:
December 31, 2010 at 10:42 am
Scarfetta accused you of having an agenda here at WUWT? Was his accusation that you refuse to allow for a coupling of the Sun to climate(in the face of what he feels is hard evidence to suggest otherwise I suppose)?
Is it an agenda to realize that Scafetta has not presented compelling evidence? In that case I’m guilty as charged.
I think that`s about it for me, I think Leif is a true believer, the AGW kind.
good riddance.
A good review of solar cycle prediction is here
http://www.leif.org/EOS/1012-5513v1.pdf
same one here:
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2010-6/
rbateman says:
December 29, 2010 at 9:20 pm
..Nicht ser gut.
~
My guess was,’ not so good,’ I was close.
http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/movie.html
12.30.10 Couple of flashes in the pan.
Leif thanks for your patience..watch out for those “Interstellar influences on the solar system,” this coming year. lol
My eldest bro has a bit more of that grey wisdom on his head than you do. ( that’s what we call it) For some reason we go from light to white. lol
HAPPY NEW YEAR to all in this thread. This was a tremendous learning experience for me and I thank all of you, including those who do not (yet :^) see eye to eye with me. It was especially instructive to have Leif Svalgaard’s active presence, as well as several others who know more about Sunspots than I ever will.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 30, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
December 30, 2010 at 7:11 pm
I am away for at least a day, but will come back.
———————————–
Happy New Year, then. Hope that you have learned something from this exchange and possibly shall update your website based on this newfound insight.
Happy New Year also, but unfortunately you have not provided any evidence that provides insight in this case. That would be very different on other occasions. I can only provide information which provides a counter argument that people then make their own judgments.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 30, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
December 30, 2010 at 4:17 pm
The only way to do a comparison is to have the same observer count through both telescopes
——————————
No, use your brain. If one count twice as much as another it just means that his k-factor is half of the other guy’s. And Waldmeier was a control freak and often went to Locarno to check on the observations.
The brain is heavily in use, but you are not seeing the logic. Think increased speck ratio. When Waldmeier was doing his comparison it was with two different observers in times of high activity. If Cortesi had a similar factor to Zulrich that does not mean the record will remain homogeneous in future times when new observers are appointed, along with the speck ratio changes like now that enable the 150mm telescope with its extra seeing to record more.
A question on the Cortesi factor: What is that factor applied to, I remember you were confused several days ago about a 0.6 telescope factor you suggested was necessary to align the 150mm and 80mm telescopes.
Cortesi is the main man who took over in 1981 when Locarno became the standard, he also emailed me informing me of the resolution difference between the two telescopes. /i>
What was the email you sent, and what was his reply? Have you forgotten the email from Clette that says that the telescope doesn’t matter?
Email transcript below, I dont think Sergio would mind.
Hi Sergio,
My name is Geoff Sharp and I run the Layman’s Sunspot Count http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
This count uses the SIDC values but attempts to discount off the Waldmeier factor as well as establish a threshold
like Wolf did. The purpose of this count is so that the current cycle can be compared with the early Wolf cycles.
The Layman’s Sunspot Count has a large daily readership. There has been a lot of recent discussion in regards to how the SIDC
aligned their count to the Waldmeier count in 1981. Also in question is whether the 3 64x telescopes Locarno, Catania and the
original Wolf 64x telescope all have the same resolution or seeing power.
We can see that there is a Waldmeier weighting factor involved in the raw Locarno daily record. Is the Waldmeier weighting
factor applied exactly as it was pre 1945 on the Wolf telescope or has it been modified to suit the Locarno telescope and ensure
an alignment with past records and also the F10.7 flux record?
Thanks in advance, I appreciate the many years of service you have provided for solar science.
Geoff Sharp.
Hi Geoff,
When Waldmeier retired in 1980 and the reasonability to calculate the sunspot number Ri moved from Zurich to SICD the problem of the continuity was explored in a serious way.
It was decided to take Locarno data as reference in order to avoid changes in the counting procedure.
Tests with the F10.7 flux were performed later to check the quality of the work, but the flux data was not used to calibrate the data reduction method!
If you are interested in more details, you can ask directly Frederic Clette (“Frédéric Clette” ) or consult his publications, as probably you already did.
The telescope originally used by Wolf did not have the same resolution as the instruments used now. The reduction factor k {R = k(10g+f)} was introduced to take care of this problem.
The reduction factor k is decided by SICD, before by Zurich.
Sergio Cortesi
—————————
His response is interesting, he acknowledges there is a difference in resolution and that a factor was applied to rectify. But if we look at the raw Locarno figures on average they are not double discounted. The non inclusion of F10.7 data also of interest. Clette’s email as you suggest has some errors (perhaps), I think (and so does Sergio) that he is wrong about the 50mm telescope seeing the same as the 150mm. Notice also he did not answer my query re using the full Waldmeier method which we have both seen can vary at Locarno……I don’t think we have all the answers yet.
Jcarels says:
December 31, 2010 at 6:05 am
Seeing conditions during the day are a lot better than what Leif says:
I have poured over many drawings from Locarno and Catania. Catania encounter level 1 conditions (best) on many occasions. Locarno not as good but not uncommon to see level 2 conditions. Of interest is that Catania can see 1000km specks in level 3 conditions suggesting this is not a standard telescope or they get good windows of opportunity in very average seeing conditions.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 30, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
December 30, 2010 at 5:21 pm
I emailed the head of the SIDC some time ago re these findings. He was very appreciative.
———————————–
You were telling him about my findings [e.g. Waldmeier jump], and, of course, he was appreciative as any person would be in his situation. He also told you in no uncertain terms that the seeing was setting the limit [and also that there is a minimum size of a spot] and that therefore the telescope was not a factor. And last, but not least, he asked not to used to promote your ‘ideas’.
You have this one way wrong.
My only response from Ronald Van der Linden was a brief message thanking me for my supplementary data.
If you referring to Frederick Clette’s emails you have twisted the wording. Just re reading them now he describes a 2000 km spot as a minimum spot that a 50mm telescope could see and that this size is the minimum spot. This is correct if 2000km was the minimum and hence his reference to the telescopes being of no difference at this level, but unfortunately this is not the minimum size of speck that is recorded. If Locarno and Catania (dont forget Catania specks have been used to break spotless runs in the past) did not record specks under 1000km then there is an argument the telescope aperture is not important….but this is not the case. The SDO images are now giving us an instrument to measure what they are counting. Your use of the minimum size speck is wrong.
I cannot see anywhere in his email that I should not “promote my ideas” You might need to explain that one.
Frederick has asked us to be patient while he investigates some of the history of the sunspot record in relation to Waldmeier and the SIDC. There is obviously some doubt that needs to be investigated, we should probably not speculate too much and await the outcome.
Reading your conversations with Frederick I am not convinced that the Locarno 150mm was compared with the 80mm at the time of the SIDC takeover. Can I suggest if you want to discuss this, it be done privately through email.
Robuk says:
December 31, 2010 at 10:42 am
Scarfetta accused you of having an agenda here at WUWT? Was his accusation that you refuse to allow for a coupling of the Sun to climate(in the face of what he feels is hard evidence to suggest otherwise I suppose)?
I think that`s about it for me, I think Leif is a true believer, the AGW kind.
Leif is on record here at WUWT referring to “the AGW nonsense”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/31/new-cycle-24-spots-emerging/#comment-140437
I do think he should clarify his comment about Scafetta though. What did he say and when that you interpret as an accusation of having an agenda Leif?
Also, it’s not uncommon for Leif to cast aspersions on people by saying that they ‘ignore evidence’ that runs contrary to their ‘pet theory’. So he shouldn’t be too surprised if they respond in kind.