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.
You say that the Maunder and Dalton minimums were dot documented, and cite Wolf. But he was not the only authority of this age. What about Shroeter, Winthrop and the Royal Society counts?
I must look into this more closely, because I thought that there were many references to sunspot numbers in this era. Here is a lithograph of sunspots, from the 1760s.
http://www.sciencephoto.com/images/download_lo_res.html?id=867000369
Looks quite accurate to me. If there are a series of these lithographs, you have all the information you need.
.
This is a quote from the High Altitude Observatory site – the history of solar science.
Sunspots observations continued in the seventeenth century, with the most active observers being the German Johannes Hevelius (1611-1687) and the French Jesuit Jean Picard (1620-1682). Very few sunspots were observed from about 1645 to 1715, and when they were their presence was noted as a noteworthy event by active astronomers. At that time, a systematic solar observing program was underway under the direction of Jean Dominique Cassini (1625-1712) at the newly founded Observatoire de Paris, with first Picard and later Philippe La Hire carrying out the bulk of the observations. Historical reconstructions of sunspot numbers indicate that the dearth of sunspots is real, rather than the consequence of a lack of diligent observers. A simultaneous decrease in auroral counts further suggest that solar activity was greatly reduced during this time period
http://www.hao.ucar.edu/education/TimelineC.php
Note that there were many observers, including Rene Descartes, in the early part of the century, but few sunspots were observed. This did not cause a sensation, of course, because it was not recognised that this was unusual.
The Royal Society was doing similar solar research, and I will try to get some info on this too.
.
rbateman says:
December 28, 2010 at 10:12 pm
If this whole thread is about the SC24 Max, then let’s talk about where that lies.
I’m not too thrilled about the chances of it breaking 50.
42 is fine, as Carsten said, but even that may be optimistic.
The Sun is not doing so well, 2 years into the cycle, and what’s the matter with SDO?
~
Thanks Rob for that layman opinion.
Check the NICT movie for yesterday 12.28.2010.
Been looking for a reason for the major density increases all of sudden. No coronal hole wind stream, not a flopping of the IMF according to GSE plots, no CME. So whats the deal, could be the helium gravitation focusing cone. (solar exhaust pipe). Of course more than helium there, too. If you check out the movie, watch that dayside.. wowee. Where did that stuff all go go go..
http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/movie.html
Geoff Sharp says:
December 29, 2010 at 1:04 am
We have no way of knowing Wolf’s exact threshold size but I think the LSC is very close.
You ‘think’ that LSC is very close. This is the problem: you have no evidence for that, no calibration, no comparison. Your threshold is taken out of the blue.
No reproduction can be perfect but the LSC is definitely closer to the Wolf method than the modern mess that we have today.
The Wolf method is inferior to how spots have been counted since the 1880s. The original 80 mm telescope is still in use. Waldmeier’s step is easily accounted for as I show. Wolf did not observe during the Dalton so there is nothing to compare with.
Some advice for readers. Don’t believe everything Leif says….he has an agenda.
Indeed I do: to get an accurate representation of solar activity the past 400 years.
Ralph says:
December 29, 2010 at 2:01 am
You say that the Maunder and Dalton minimums were not[?] documented
No, I don’t say that. I said that the Maunder Minimum where almost no spots were visible could be called a Grand Minimum in that respect, and that I do not consider the Dalton minimum to be a Grand Minimum, just a period with low activity.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 29, 2010 at 5:03 am
You ‘think’ that LSC is very close. This is the problem: you have no evidence for that, no calibration, no comparison. Your threshold is taken out of the blue.
There is no calibration possible, but we have a good idea on what was viewable in the early 1800’s according to his viewing position. This is an area of weakness for you.
No reproduction can be perfect but the LSC is definitely closer to the Wolf method than the modern mess that we have today.
—————————
The Wolf method is inferior to how spots have been counted since the 1880s. The original 80 mm telescope is still in use. Waldmeier’s step is easily accounted for as I show. Wolf did not observe during the Dalton so there is nothing to compare with.
More hand waving, the original telescope is a museum piece and not used for many years. The Wolf method might be inferior to you, but that was the method of the times…we need to compare with that method. The Waldmeier step has not been accounted for, as shown in your paper. You are not a man of science.
Wolf did a reconstruction that agrees with your principles, which you use to bolster your claim that the older counts are too low. You are on very shakey ground.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 28, 2010 at 9:49 am
Robuk says:
He should compare with these,
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/galileonewton.jpg
I know you are enamored by those old telescopes, but you miss the point completely [and seem to be resistant to learning]. We use ALL the data we can get our hands on from those early days, then try to harmonize, torture, adjust, revise, fake, guess, etc what they would have been compared to modern data [taken with an 8 cm refractor at magnification 64]
I don`t love the old scopes, my point is that if only large sunspots could be seen in the Maunda min, you could only compare the lack of large sunspots with the fall in temperature at that time, they may have been hundreds of smaller spots that could not be seen then which are counted today, it doesn`t matter, that number is irrelevant, its the number of large spots counted at that time compared to temperature then not the number of all the spots. There is no need to harmonize, torture, adjust, revise or fake it, you have the early Maunda telescopes and ample early data to compare with. Use todays powerfull telescopes and do your science but don`t compare these numbers with the past, they are not the same.
Is it so difficult to do a side by side real world comparison with the old (as above) and the modern scopes, and I don`t mean compare with an 1850`s scope.
You don`t want to do simple because you can`t fiddle simple.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 29, 2010 at 5:03 am
Ralph says:
December 29, 2010 at 2:01 am
You say that the Maunder and Dalton minimums were not[?] documented
No, I don’t say that. I said that the Maunder Minimum where almost no spots were visible could be called a Grand Minimum in that respect, and that I do not consider the Dalton minimum to be a Grand Minimum, just a period with low activity.
You are ducking the question. Your view on what constitutes a grand minimum is clouded. If we have to wait for a Maunder of Sporer type minimum to be called grand minimum, we will only see the absolute minimums of solar activity. There are different shades between black and white. The Sun has very regular periods of downturn, each one with a different modulation. A solar scientist should recognize this.
Geoff Sharp says:
December 29, 2010 at 5:53 am
There is no calibration possible
Indeed, not your way.
the original telescope is a museum piece and not used for many years.
The original telescope has been in continuous use since 1856 to this day.
The Wolf method might be inferior to you, but that was the method of the times…
No, it was not the method during the Dalton minimum as it was not invented yet. It was the method 1849-1893.
The Waldmeier step has not been accounted for, as shown in your paper. You are not a man of science.
The step is accounted for by raising all counts before 1945 by 20%. [or reducing all counts after 1945 by 20% – the latter not being practical as some modern operational programs use the modern SSNs]
Wolf did a reconstruction that agrees with your principles, which you use to bolster your claim that the older counts are too low.
this statement makes no sense. If you look at slide 8 of http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202010%20SH53B-03.pdf you’ll see that Wolf in his lists of 1861 and 1874 had SC5 to be 75% higher than in his 1882 list [which we basically still use].
Robuk says:
December 29, 2010 at 6:07 am
Use todays powerful telescopes and do your science but don`t compare these numbers with the past, they are not the same.
The sunspot number today is not based on modern powerful telescopes but on a telescope from 1856. You seem to saying that during the Maunder Minimum there were a lot of spots, but that they were not counted because of inferior telescopes. I disagree with that, they were not counted because they were very hard to see [with any telescope, even with modern instruments as may be happening again].
Geoff Sharp says:
December 29, 2010 at 6:15 am
If we have to wait for a Maunder of Sporer type minimum to be called grand minimum, we will only see the absolute minimums of solar activity.
Indeed, only such absolute mimima should be called ‘Grand Minima’
There are different shades between black and white. The Sun has very regular periods of downturn, each one with a different modulation.
Sure, one now, one 100 years ago, another one 100 years before that. We don’t call such regular periods of downturns Grand Minima [or at least we shouldn’t].
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 29, 2010 at 6:22 am
The original telescope has been in continuous use since 1856 to this day.
More hand waving. the original telescope has not been used in official counting since 1981. Get a grip.
The Wolf method might be inferior to you, but that was the method of the times…
——————–
No, it was not the method during the Dalton minimum as it was not invented yet. It was the method 1849-1893.
It was still the method, reconstructed using his principles that have withstood the test of time. Wold got it right…remember?
The Waldmeier step has not been accounted for, as shown in your paper. You are not a man of science.
———————————————
The step is accounted for by raising all counts before 1945 by 20%. [or reducing all counts after 1945 by 20% – the latter not being practical as some modern operational programs use the modern SSNs]
Come on Leif…that is pathetic. The count has not been adjusted yet. The Waldmeier factor is still present in the modern count as you know. This is like debating with a school boy.
Wolf did a reconstruction that agrees with your principles, which you use to bolster your claim that the older counts are too low.
——-
this statement makes no sense. If you look at slide 8 of http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202010%20SH53B-03.pdf you’ll see that Wolf in his lists of 1861 and 1874 had SC5 to be 75% higher than in his 1882 list [which we basically still use].
He did revisions, just as you have done. The group sunspot number and proxy records agree with his revisions.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 29, 2010 at 6:50 am
The sunspot number today is not based on modern powerful telescopes but on a telescope from 1856.
Totally wrong again. That may have been the starting point, but the modern 150mm telescopes see much more. How many times do I have to repeat this. We can debate this in mathematical terms of aperture size if you would like?
Question to Leif and Geoff:
What was Landscheidt’s calculated maximum for solar cycle 24 and 25. For whatever reason I can’t seem to pull up the graph or number and the papers that do list all the SC24 predictions omit Landscheidt.
Yes, I know Leif you don’t believe Angular Momentum has nothing to do with sunspot activity, however, IF there is a correlation then in the interest of science and knowledge we should gain an understanding as to why. Yes, correlation is not causation, but it may point us in the direction where we need to further study.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 29, 2010 at 6:55 am
Sure, one now, one 100 years ago, another one 100 years before that. We don’t call such regular periods of downturns Grand Minima [or at least we shouldn’t].
This comment shows your lack of understanding of solar modulation.
Geoff Sharp says:
December 29, 2010 at 7:12 am
“The original telescope has been in continuous use since 1856 to this day.”
The original telescope has not been used in official counting since 1981.
Irrelevant, as it is still being used. And agrees well with the official count until ~2001, after which the official SIDC count is a bit too low.
It was still the method, reconstructed using his principles that have withstood the test of time. Wolf got it right…remember?
No, it was superseded in 1894 and has not been used since. What Wolf got right, was to calibrate against the geomagnetic data. This has nothing to do with how the spots are counted, but will work with any method.
The count has not been adjusted yet. The Waldmeier factor is still present in the modern count as you know.
I have adjusted for it. And the Waldmeier jump has nothing to do with Wolf. If you want to correct for it, simply reduce the official count be 20%.
He did revisions, just as you have done. The group sunspot number and proxy records agree with his revisions.
He revised SC5 down by 75% in 1882. And the GSN does not agree with Wolf at all as I show on slides 9-12 of http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202010%20SH53B-03.pdf
—-
But, none of this detracts from the LSC being junk. We don’t really care what Wolf might or might not have counted had he done that during the Dalton minimum [which he didn’t]. We don’t really want or need to reintroduce Wolf’s inferior method. We care about what solar activity actually was during that time. Since the LSC has no calibration, it cannot be used for that, in addition to the fact that Wolf did not observe.
Now, counting sunspots and measuring areas are a lot of fun. Hundreds of people all over the world do this correctly.
Maunder Minimum – a real event.
Thanks for the clarification, Leif.
Regards evidence for the Maunder Minimum, I refer anyone to JR Eddy, Science, 1976 vol 192-4245.
Eddy makes a good case for the Maunder Minimum being real, and not due to a lack of observations. He thinks Wolf’s ignoring this era was due to his desire to show the sunspot cycle as being a historical reality, and yet the 1645 to 1715 era showed little activity. Indeed, between 1672 and 1704, there were no recorded sunspots, and Wolf, like Herschel, may have thought that much of this was due to a lack of observations.
However, Eddy quotes Maunder himself saying:
“… at Paris, Msr Cassini has detected a spot of the sun again, of which none have been seen these many years that we know of.”
And Cassini saying:
“… it is now 20 years since astronomers have seen considerable spots of the sun.”
“… Picard was pleased at the discovery of a spot, since it was ten whole years since he had seen one, no matter how great the care he had taken to see one.”
Herschel debated if this lack of sunspots was due to poor instrumentation. But as Eddy points out, the astronomers of the day discovered the moons of Saturn and described many solar transits of Mercury and Venus, plus many other solar activities – so this was not due to a lack of instrumentation or observing.
Eddy also points out the quality of the astronomers in the mid to late 1600s, who included: Flamstead, Derham, Hooke, Haley, Huyghens, Hevelin, Romer, Cassini, Gassendi, Hive, Boullian, Picard, Grimaldi, Riccioli, Weyel, Wurzelban and Schreiner.
The conclusion is that the Maunder Minimum was a real event, and that the sunspot numbers dropped to a very low minimum for 70 years, between 1645 and 1715, and to absolute zero for 30 of those years.
.
dscott says:
December 29, 2010 at 7:32 am
Question to Leif and Geoff:
What was Landscheidt’s calculated maximum for solar cycle 24 and 25. For whatever reason I can’t seem to pull up the graph or number and the papers that do list all the SC24 predictions omit Landscheidt.
Yes, I know Leif you don’t believe Angular Momentum has nothing to do with sunspot activity, however, IF there is a correlation then in the interest of science and knowledge we should gain an understanding as to why. Yes, correlation is not causation, but it may point us in the direction where we need to further study.
Not a good question for Leif, but Dr. Landscheidt was predicting some slowing down of solar activity now but the ultimate low being in 2030. Today we have much more detail that works on his basic principle that suggests the solar slowdown is happening now but will be recovering in 2030.
Geoff Sharp says:
December 29, 2010 at 7:27 am
“The sunspot number today is not based on modern powerful telescopes but on a telescope from 1856.”
Totally wrong again. That may have been the starting point, but the modern 150mm telescopes see much more. How many times do I have to repeat this. We can debate this in mathematical terms of aperture size if you would like?
Irrelevant, as the actual modern counts match very well what is observed with the original 80 mm telescope: http://www.leif.org/research/Keller-SIDC.png
and http://www.leif.org/research/Keller-SIDC-2.png
If anything, SIDC is a bit on the low side since ~2001. Hopefully that will be fixed soon.
As Frederic Clette tried to make you understand it is not every darkening that qualifies as a sunspot. There is a minimum size that has to be reached. Observers understand this.
dscott says:
December 29, 2010 at 7:32 am
I know Leif you don’t believe Angular Momentum has nothing to do with sunspot activity
No scientist believes that
IF there is a correlation
Unfortunately, no such correlation has been demonstrated and accepted [although the are lots of claims]
Geoff Sharp says:
December 29, 2010 at 7:40 am
This comment shows your lack of understanding of solar modulation.
Understanding derives from observation, not wishful thinking
Ralph says:
December 29, 2010 at 7:49 am
The conclusion is that the Maunder Minimum was a real event, and that the sunspot numbers dropped to a very low minimum for 70 years, between 1645 and 1715, and to absolute zero for 30 of those years.
You are barking up the wrong tree. Nobody disputes that the Maunder Minimum was real, so why do you keep pointing this out.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 29, 2010 at 7:47 am
Geoff Sharp says:
December 29, 2010 at 7:12 am
The original telescope has not been used in official counting since 1981.
——————-
Irrelevant, as it is still being used. And agrees well with the official count until ~2001, after which the official SIDC count is a bit too low.
Rubbish…show me the official sunspot drawings from today’s “Wolf telescope”
It was still the method, reconstructed using his principles that have withstood the test of time. Wolf got it right…remember?
——-
No, it was superseded in 1894 and has not been used since. What Wolf got right, was to calibrate against the geomagnetic data. This has nothing to do with how the spots are counted, but will work with any method.
He used the same method to calibrate the Dalton Minimum, get over it.
The count has not been adjusted yet. The Waldmeier factor is still present in the modern count as you know.
——–
I have adjusted for it. And the Waldmeier jump has nothing to do with Wolf. If you want to correct for it, simply reduce the official count be 20%.
Ok , so your adjustment in your mind has fixed the official record. The official record does not reflect your delusions.
He did revisions, just as you have done. The group sunspot number and proxy records agree with his revisions.
———————————
He revised SC5 down by 75% in 1882. And the GSN does not agree with Wolf at all as I show on slides 9-12 of http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202010%20SH53B-03.pdf
Cant see much on your slides?
—-
But, none of this detracts from the LSC being junk. We don’t really care what Wolf might or might not have counted had he done that during the Dalton minimum [which he didn’t]. We don’t really want or need to reintroduce Wolf’s inferior method. We care about what solar activity actually was during that time. Since the LSC has no calibration, it cannot be used for that, in addition to the fact that Wolf did not observe.
Now, counting sunspots and measuring areas are a lot of fun. Hundreds of people all over the world do this correctly.
You can have your fun Leif, but some of are interested in counting sunspots as they were counted/reconstructed as per Wolf during the Dalton Minimum.
15th May 1995.
These valuable and previously neglected, observations provide additional daily information during the later portions of the Maunda minimum, combined with daily observations by Picard, La hire, Eimmart and others, information on more than 200 days per year during much of the Maunda Minimum is now available, It indicates the probability of failing to observe sunspots during these years is SMALL.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g621x2918n7l05q6/fulltext.pdf
Forecasters keep eye on looming ‘Solar Max’ (They must be kidding)
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.bdf9ddce1297325e1b97e06696026e73.111&show_article=1
Geoff Sharp says:
December 29, 2010 at 8:21 am
Rubbish…show me the official sunspot drawings from today’s “Wolf telescope”
First, no quotes need. It is the original telescope.
Second, Wolf, Wolfer, Brunner, Waldmeier, and Keller/Friedli did not make drawings for the determination of the SSN. The count is [and must be for compatibility reasons] be made visually [not even projected onto a screen] looking through the telescope [image dimmed by a polarizer]
He used the same method to calibrate the Dalton Minimum
He calibrated other peoples data against the geomagnetic and auroral data, nothing to do with threshold or specks. Accept it.
Ok , so your adjustment in your mind has fixed the official record. The official record does not reflect your delusions.
I adjust the same way as Wolf did. The official record will be updated in due course.
Cant see much on your slides?
Try to look at them. Slice 8 should be simple enough. Look at SC5 in the upper panel. In the lower I have placed an oval on SC5 for your convenience.
You can have your fun Leif, but some of are interested in counting sunspots as they were counted/reconstructed as per Wolf during the Dalton Minimum.
So are we all as well [so it can be adjusted properly], but the LSC does not accomplish that because it is uncalibrated, simple as that.
Robuk says:
December 29, 2010 at 8:35 am
It indicates the probability of failing to observe sunspots during these years is SMALL.
Nobody failed to see sunspots during these years [this is accepted by everybody], so I’m at a loss why you keep harping on it.
R. de Haan says:
December 29, 2010 at 8:54 am
Forecasters keep eye on looming ‘Solar Max’ (They must be kidding)
The usual hype, but there is evidence that very violent solar storms often happen as low solar activity. From http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
“Average space weather might be ‘‘milder’’ with decreased solar activity, but the extreme events that dominate technological effects are not expected to disappear. In fact, they may become more common. Two of the eight strongest storms in the last 150 years occurred during solar cycle 14 (Rmax = 64) [Cliver and Svalgaard, 2004], while three of the five largest 30 MeV solar energetic proton events since 1859 [McCracken et al., 2001] occurred during cycle 13 (Rmax = 88).”
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 29, 2010 at 8:59 am
Geoff Sharp says:
December 29, 2010 at 8:21 am
He used the same method to calibrate the Dalton Minimum
He calibrated other peoples data against the geomagnetic and auroral data, nothing to do with threshold or specks. Accept it.
What geomagnetic data? You told me yesterday on the Trenberth thread that there are no geomagnetic data for the 1804-1817 period.