NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center posted an update to their graphs today.
They show the largest gains in solar cycle 24 tracking metrics I’ve seen yet.
See graphs below:
Update on solar cycle 24
- Tuesday, September 15, 2026
NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center posted an update to their graphs today.
They show the largest gains in solar cycle 24 tracking metrics I’ve seen yet.
See graphs below:
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 9, 2011 at 6:19 am
An Aperture of 1.46 inches is equivalent to 37 millimeters.
Dawes Limit for that Aperture is 3.13 arc seconds.
Dawes Limit is a theoretical maximum. A more practical estimate of resolving power is 3.24 arc seconds as given by Brian D. Mason in Observer’s Handbook 2000, page 236.
————-
An Aperture of 3.15 inches is equivalent to 80 millimeters.
Dawes Limit for that Aperture is 1.45 arc seconds.
Dawes Limit is a theoretical maximum. A more practical estimate of resolving power is 1.50 arc seconds as given by Brian D. Mason in Observer’s Handbook 2000, page 236.
For the 37 mm scope, under perfect skies, given a Sun subtending 30′ of arc, and a resolution of 3.24″ of arc (given perfect optics with zero abberations -including filter) one could observe 1.033x10E6 pores.
For the 80 mm scope, under perfect skies, given a Sun subtending 30′ of arc and a resolution of 1.5″ of arc, one could observe .022 x 10E6 sub pores.
But, one is using a filter, which is not the same as the full amount of light being spread out as in projection.
There is much more to be proven out here.
Actual concurent side-by-side documented test cases need to be performed.
And the results have to be repeatable, yes?
The sun’s activity is one the way!
God saves the AGW and our grands…
rbateman says:
April 9, 2011 at 10:16 am
For the 37 mm scope, under perfect skies
For the 80 mm scope, under perfect skies
But, one is using a filter, which is not the same as the full amount of light being spread out as in projection.
Of course a filter is used. For the 80mm [actually 83mm] scope it is still the old Merz Polarization Helioscope [probably made near 1823]. But the perfect sky condition is never achieved. Normally, seeing is the limiting factor [as long as the aperture is about 40mm or higher] and the telescope doesn’t really matter.
Actual concurent side-by-side documented test cases need to be performed.
And the results have to be repeatable, yes?
All this has been gone over by hundreds of observers over the centuries and the results are very repeatable. For modern instruments you can compare Catania http://web.ct.astro.it/sun/draw.jpg and Locarno http://www.specola.ch/e/drawings.html [wait for a day where they both observe, or look at Figure 11 of http://www.leif.org/research/http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspot-Calibration.pdf , work in progress]. You can clearly see the effect of the superior seeing at Catania. But, again, this is largely irrelevant as the observations with the Wolf telescopes are and have already been made by visual inspection [no drawings produced]. Before Waldmeier stopped the commendable publication of individual observations in 1945, you have the raw data available, so we can compare counts. Also Keller and Friedli have continued observations with both the original telescopes and their counts are easily compared.
Norman Page says:
April 8, 2011 at 7:28 am
Leif – your sector boundary explanation sounds plausible – but do you have any data to support it? Solar wind velocity change at the appropriate time for example.
The 3% was just the initial drop – total was 5% + in a week or so – would be very significant if it continues.
~
You might find plotting the so called space age high cosmic ray years interesting.
From the Moscow neutron monitor I input 2005 April 7 to 2011 April 7. Also used the 27 day corrected for pressure.
That extra year with its all time high GCR counts didn’t go un noticed to some of us. We saw extra precip in all its glorious forms throughout planet increase.
Been thinking again about how abrasion might be playing a role in the cosmic ray increase, taking place in the Earth’s magnetosphere.. er maybe.. hmm how bout this as part of the increase scenario..
During times of higher solar activity, high energy cosmic rays are swept away by higher solar wind speeds etc..
During these miniumn times we see a more steady erosion of Earth’s magnetic field during reconnection periods without sufficient recovery time before the next solar wind stream/sector boudary change just blows those cosmic rays in through a more frequently left open doorway..
Leif, did you know that NASA not only calls spring aurora season but also calls spring “FireBall Season.” huh lol hahaha eek gads
Carla says:
April 9, 2011 at 2:12 pm
You might find plotting the so called space age high cosmic ray years interesting.
From the Moscow neutron monitor I input 2005 April 7 to 2011 April 7. Also used the 27 day corrected for pressure.
Moscow had severe instrumental problem over this minimum, especially at the very peak of its record at the end of April 2009. That increase was artificial and has nothing to do with reality.
That extra year with its all time high GCR counts didn’t go un noticed to some of us.
Yeah, you are very good at ascribing all kinds of nonsense to instrumental glitches, noise, and such.
Carla says:
April 9, 2011 at 2:12 pm
You might find plotting the so called space age high cosmic ray years interesting.
From the Moscow neutron monitor I input 2005 April 7 to 2011 April 7.
Moscow had severe instrumental problem over this minimum, especially at the very peak of its record at the end of April 2009. That increase was artificial and has nothing to do with reality, here is a comparison Moscow-Oulu http:/www.leif.org/research/Moscow-Oulu-2009.png
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 9, 2011 at 2:38 pm
That increase was artificial and has nothing to do with reality, here is a comparison Moscow-Oulu http://www.leif.org/research/Moscow-Oulu-2009.png
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 9, 2011 at 6:19 am
The real limit is set by seeing not by the size of the telescope.
This statement is incorrect. The 37mm telescope cannot resolve beyond 3 arc seconds, viewing conditions in the right places can get down to .5 arc seconds.
Did you find out if Locarno measures the magnification at the viewing lens or at the projected drawing?
————————————-
No, as it is irrelevant: the size of the projected drawing [25cm] is what counts.
What you are saying is that magnification is not important, which is wrong. This issue is yet to be resolved.
Geoff Sharp says:
April 10, 2011 at 10:19 pm
This statement is incorrect. The 37mm telescope cannot resolve beyond 3 arc seconds, viewing conditions in the right places can get down to .5 arc seconds.
‘Right places’ don’t matter because Wolf had to contend with the places where he was. In the middle of a city. BTW, sunspot smaller than 3″ counts as pores and were not counted by Wolf. His use of the handheld (plus seeing) automatically insured that he could not see the pores or the small spots just above pore size. He compensated for that be multiplying his counts by 1.5. As I said, once the telescope is large enough its aperture doesn’t matter as seeing sets the limit. Study the upper right hand panel of this figure that shows the k-factor as a function of aperture size: http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-80mm-Telescope.png. You may safely assume that when I say something about solar observing it is not incorrect. Medium seeing [seeing indicator 2-3] is when the image motion is 3-5 arcseconds.
What you are saying is that magnification is not important, which is wrong. This issue is yet to be resolved.
Referring to the above, the seeing is the limit once you are above certain size issues [which Locarno is]. So this is not an unresolved ‘issue’, just a FUD strawman. Here is for comparison drawings of a recent group from NSO [image 82 cm], MWO [image 42 cm] and Locarno [image 25]: http://www.leif.org/research/NSO-MWO-Locarno-Spots.png. As you can see the telescope doesn’t matter [once large enough].
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 11, 2011 at 7:48 am
As I said, once the telescope is large enough its aperture doesn’t matter as seeing sets the limit
The 37mm telescope is not large enough, this is the point you are not seeing. The 37mm telescope is the backbone of Wolf’s counting method.
The Locarno telescope stopped down to 80mm is used as the worlds benchmark for viewing sunspots, but in association this same organization (SIDC) incorporates a highly inflated counted method to achieve an end result. Catania and NOAA who use superior optics and a regular non inflated counting procedure come up with a count which matches closely the Locarno result. If Locarno did not add the Waldmeier factor they would be way out of step with Catania and NOAA, this is not just a function of better telescope placement.
Geoff Sharp says:
April 11, 2011 at 8:50 am
The 37mm telescope is not large enough, this is the point you are not seeing. The 37mm telescope is the backbone of Wolf’s counting method.
What nonsense. I keep telling you that the 37mm is too small and that Wolf scaled his count by multiplying by 1.5 to match the real backbone, his 83mm standard refractor.
The Locarno telescope stopped down to 80mm is used as the worlds benchmark for viewing sunspots, but in association this same organization (SIDC) incorporates a highly inflated counted method to achieve an end result.
As I have shown repeatedly, SIDC undercounts [best seen by comparing with Keller/Friedli using the original Wolf telescope, but comparison with every other counting organization shows the same, e.g Figures 24-25 of http://www.leif.org/research/Eddy-Symp-Poster-1.pdf ]. Nobody is trying to achieve an ‘end result’. Everybody does the best work possible, in contrast to people [wrongly] thinking that Wolf’s series is ‘under threat’.
Catania and NOAA who use superior optics and a regular non inflated counting procedure come up with a count which matches closely the Locarno result.
NOAAs count is derived from a network of observers which mostly use the recommended small telescope size. Catania has superb seeing so see a bit more. These people do not try to align themselves with the International sunspot number, i.e. don’t apply the 0.6 factor [as I’m advocating SIDC should stop doing too]. Nobody is ‘inflating’ anything. Most people understand the difference between a scale factor and an inflation. Fahrenheit is not inflated Centigrade.
If Locarno did not add the Waldmeier factor they would be way out of step with Catania and NOAA, this is not just a function of better telescope placement.
http://www.leif.org/research/Catania-2007-July-13.png shows clearly the difference good seeing [depending on better placement] makes. Catania’s spot count [with seeing=1 (best)] is 35 versus Locarno’s 17 [with seeing 2-3=medium]. Most of that comes from the many small spots and pores, not from the weighting. Incidentally, Catania makes a distinction between spots [their ‘s’ count which was 8 on that day] and pores [their ‘p’ count which was 27]. And if you exclude the pores, you actually get an approximation to what Wolf would have counted.
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 11, 2011 at 10:04 am
What nonsense. I keep telling you that the 37mm is too small and that Wolf scaled his count by multiplying by 1.5 to match the real backbone, his 83mm standard refractor.
Think about it. Wolf used a threshold. This threshold must have been observable in his 37mm telescope. (zero x 1.5 = zero). The 37mm is constrained mainly by its aperture which sees less than most viewing days atmospheric conditions. The LSC handheld replica shows me what size sunspot can be viewed with a visible penumbra which Wolf most likely used as his threshold. That size spot continually comes out at the LSC threshold of 333 pixels on the SDO images. This gives a reasonable calibration that you continually spruke is not present.
As I have shown repeatedly, SIDC undercounts
No you havent. What you have shown is mainly a comparison of amateur astronomers but did not include the NOAA results. You said yourself a few days ago the long term factor average between SIDC and NOAA is 0.65. The SIDC is over counting compared to NOAA which I have shown you multiple times via graphs.
Nobody is ‘inflating’ anything. Most people understand the difference between a scale factor and an inflation. Fahrenheit is not inflated Centigrade.
The SIDC are inflating by invoking the Waldmeier counting method.
I have been comparing Catania/Locarno drawings on a daily basis for nearly 2 years and there is no doubt that Catania draw more specks than Locarno. This is also observed when both sites have similar viewing conditions.
The differences between the telescopes is easily observable. These differences have been balanced out by employing different counting methods. The important aspect that is emerging is the all important Wolf threshold size.
Geoff Sharp says:
April 11, 2011 at 6:20 pm
Wolf used a threshold. This threshold must have been observable in his 37mm telescope. (zero x 1.5 = zero). The 37mm is constrained mainly by its aperture which sees less than most viewing days atmospheric conditions.
wolf did not have a well-defined threshold. The closets we can get to what he did is his mentioning that he did not count the small spots that would require the best seeing to be visible.
visible penumbra which Wolf most likely used as his threshold.
No the penumbra has nothing to do with it. The threshold was determined by the seeing as I just explained.
This gives a reasonable calibration that you continually spruke is not present.
your LSC has no calibration. except what you want it to be.
As I have shown repeatedly, SIDC undercounts
No you havent. What you have shown is mainly a comparison of amateur astronomers but did not include the NOAA results.
The amateurs are the very best. There are hundreds of them and they are meticulous and dedicated. NOAA is also basing their numbers on a selection of amateur observers.
You said yourself a few days ago the long term factor average between SIDC and NOAA is 0.65. The SIDC is over counting compared to NOAA which I have shown you multiple times via graphs.
You have shown nothing of the kind. Here is a real comparison: http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-NOAA.png
The time of undercounting by SIDC is marked with red, open triangles. The mean of those points is 0.601. Partly due to my needling them, SIDC is beginning to improve on that as the green triangles show. Their long term ratio is 0.659. The green ratio before the undercounting period began in 2001 was 0.662, and recently [green triangles after the red one] is has been 0.639, so they have improved. but are not quite there yet. I think we have gone around the bush too many times on this. Man up and accept the data so we don’t need to do this again, and again, and again…
“Nobody is ‘inflating’ anything. Most people understand the difference between a scale factor and an inflation. Fahrenheit is not inflated Centigrade.”
The SIDC are inflating by invoking the Waldmeier counting method.
The official sunspot number has been based on the Waldmeier weighting since 1945 at least. Nothing to do with SIDC.
I have been comparing Catania/Locarno drawings on a daily basis for nearly 2 years and there is no doubt that Catania draw more specks than Locarno. This is also observed when both sites have similar viewing conditions.
Of course the do, they have better seeing. You last statement is unfounded. Perhaps you can show your detailed, numerical analysis of this…
The differences between the telescopes is easily observable.
As I showed in http://www.leif.org/research/Catania-2007-July-13.png The difference is due to seeing.
The important aspect that is emerging is the all important Wolf threshold size.
Nobody cares [or should care] about the ill-defined Wolf threshold [based on seeing] as the true calibration [as Wolf himself used] is provided by the correspondence with the geomagnetic record. Furthermore whatever Wolf did has no bearing on the sunspot number before 1849. Wolf himself [~1874] upped his reconstruction before that by a wholesale 25% to match the true calibration from the magnetic needle.
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 11, 2011 at 7:58 pm
Your arguments are getting weaker, not at all convincing.
You have shown nothing of the kind. Here is a real comparison:
Why bother with a confusing graph when NOAA themselves publish the difference to SIDC. SC24 shows the SIDC counting higher than NOAA…end of story. The same pattern is observed if we go back further.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sidc_noaa1.png
Of course the do, they have better seeing. You last statement is unfounded. Perhaps you can show your detailed, numerical analysis of this…
It is not easy to find images drawn at the same time and having the same seeing conditions at this time of year. But the 30th March provides an example.
http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2011/loc-d20110330.JPG
ftp://ftp.ct.astro.it/../../sundraw/OAC_D_20110330_091000.JPG
http://jsoc.stanford.edu/data/hmi/images/2011/03/30/20110330_094500_Ic_flat_4k.jpg
Both Catania and Locarno have seeing conditions of 2. The drawings are 35 minutes apart plus I have provided the SDO image that corresponds with Locarno.
There is extra detail in the Catania drawing which provides more specks and the detail in the penumbra/umbra area is far more accurate in the Catania drawings when you compare with the SDO image. I have compared many Locarno drawings with the SDO image and it is obvious on some days they are guessing or fudging a little because of the poorer resolution.
The overall raw count for this day:
Locarno – 110
Catania – 88
NOAA – 91
The SIDC official discounted figure for the day is 68 which is very close to Locarno x .6 showing the Waldmeier factor in full force. NOAA x .6 is 54.6. The LSC value for the same day was 50.
Agreed that Catania has better seeing on average than Locarno, but the telescope factor along with the Waldmeier factor are clearly evident. Most days would have Catania with better seeing which takes up the balance and brings their results closer together. The elephant in the room is that NOAA do not use the inflated Waldmeier counting method but still come reasonably close to the SIDC value when measured over the longer term, the SIDC are not undercounting when comparing with NOAA.
Wolf did not have the benefit of the extra observers, or the clearer skies and mainly used his 37mm telescope with a filter. There is no way you can claim the two counting methods can be compared, and this is before applying the big jump imposed by the Waldmeier factor.
Geoff Sharp says:
April 12, 2011 at 2:05 am
Why bother with a confusing graph when NOAA themselves publish the difference to SIDC. SC24 shows the SIDC counting higher than NOAA…end of story. The same pattern is observed if we go back further.
The ‘confusing’ graph is NOAA’s and SIDC’s own data. This is real data. Clearly you don’t like what they show, but that is understandable in view of your agenda.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sidc_noaa1.png
As the long-term ratio is 0.66, use that instead of 0.60 and show the result.
But the 30th March provides an example.
Both Catania and Locarno have seeing conditions of 2.
There is extra detail in the Catania drawing which provides more specks and the detail in the penumbra/umbra area
Not at all, the other way around [if there is any difference]: http://www.leif.org/research/Catania-Locarno-March-30.png
The overall raw count for this day:
The SIDC official discounted figure for the day is 68 which is very close to Locarno x .6 showing the Waldmeier factor in full force. NOAA x .6 is 54.6. The LSC value for the same day was 50.
You should not use 0.6 for NOAA, when the real k-factor is closer to 0.66. 0.66*91= 60. The day you so carefully cherry picked had a very atypical ratio SIDC/NOAA as you can see here: [pink square]
http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-NOAA-Recent-Ratios.png
Agreed that Catania has better seeing on average than Locarno, but the telescope factor along with the Waldmeier factor are clearly evident.
I just showed you that on the day you picked Locarno saw more detail than Catania. The Waldmeier factor is irrelevant because that apples to all days since 1945 and is simply built into the k-factor.
As I said, once the telescope is large enough its aperture doesn’t matter as seeing sets the limit. Study the upper right hand panel of this figure that shows the k-factor as a function of aperture size: http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-80mm-Telescope.png.
No dependence on telescope above, say 60mm. One might actually argue that the k-factor is smallest [smaller k: see more spots] around 80-100mm and that a larger telescope makes it worse.
The elephant in the room is that NOAA do not use the inflated Waldmeier counting method but still come reasonably close to the SIDC value when measured over the longer term
Nonsense, NOAA adjusts the individual [many] amateur observers using the SIDC numbers to ensure that they stay close to the nominal 0.6. They are not quite successful, but close enough for Government work.
the SIDC are not undercounting when comparing with NOAA.
That you repeat this falsehood, does not make it true. On your own plot, use the 0.66 scaling factor instead of 0.60, and show us.
Wolf did not have the benefit of the extra observers, or the clearer skies and mainly used his 37mm telescope with a filter.
He had several assistants and an extensive network of external observers. He himself found that he could compensate for the smaller scope by multiplying his counts by 1.5 to align it with his standard telescope, the 80mm. Should we not trust him on that? Who can best judge this? Wolf or us? I’ll go with Wolf on that.
There is no way you can claim the two counting methods can be compared, and this is before applying the big jump imposed by the Waldmeier factor.
I’m not making that claim, Wolfer from 16 years of simultaneous observations [Wolfer using the 80mm and Wolf using the 37mm] is making that claim based on thousands of observations. In any event, Wolfer’s is the better way [every competent observer agrees] and the best we can do with the old Wolf data is to correct its deficiencies by comparing with the geomagnetic record, which actually works pretty well [Wolf did that himself with the data before 1849].
Geoff Sharp says:
April 12, 2011 at 2:05 am
Why bother with a confusing graph when NOAA themselves publish the difference to SIDC. SC24 shows the SIDC counting higher than NOAA…end of story. The same pattern is observed if we go back further.
The ‘confusing’ graph is NOAA’s and SIDC’s own data. This is real data. Clearly you don’t like what they show, but that is understandable in view of your agenda.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sidc_noaa1.png
As the long-term ratio is 0.66, use that instead of 0.60 and show the result.
But the 30th March provides an example.
Both Catania and Locarno have seeing conditions of 2.
There is extra detail in the Catania drawing which provides more specks and the detail in the penumbra/umbra area
Not at all, the other way around [if there is any difference]: http://www.leif.org/research/Catania-Locarno-March-30.png
The overall raw count for this day:
The SIDC official discounted figure for the day is 68 which is very close to Locarno x .6 showing the Waldmeier factor in full force. NOAA x .6 is 54.6. The LSC value for the same day was 50.
You should not use 0.6 for NOAA, when the real k-factor is closer to 0.66. 0.66*91= 60. The day you so carefully cherry picked had a very atypical ratio SIDC/NOAA as you can see here: [pink square]
http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-NOAA-Recent-Ratios.png
Agreed that Catania has better seeing on average than Locarno, but the telescope factor along with the Waldmeier factor are clearly evident.
I just showed you that on the day you picked Locarno saw more detail than Catania. The Waldmeier factor is irrelevant because that apples to all days since 1945 and is simply built into the k-factor.
As I said, once the telescope is large enough its aperture doesn’t matter as seeing sets the limit. Study the upper right hand panel of this figure that shows the k-factor as a function of aperture size: http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-80mm-Telescope.png .
No dependence on telescope above, say 60mm. One might actually argue that the k-factor is smallest [smaller k: see more spots] around 80-100mm and that a larger telescope makes it worse. This is the reason most sunspot observers use small telescopes of about this size.
The elephant in the room is that NOAA do not use the inflated Waldmeier counting method but still come reasonably close to the SIDC value when measured over the longer term
Nonsense, NOAA adjusts the individual [many] amateur observers using the SIDC numbers to ensure that NOAA stays close to the nominal 0.6. They are not quite successful, but close enough for Government work.
the SIDC are not undercounting when comparing with NOAA.
That you repeat this falsehood, does not make it true. On your own plot, use the 0.66 scaling factor instead of 0.60, and show us. Here is the real data:
http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-NOAA.png
The time of undercounting by SIDC is marked with red, open triangles. The mean of those points is 0.601. Partly due to my needling them, SIDC is beginning to improve on that as the green triangles show. Their long term ratio is 0.659. The green ratio before the undercounting period began in 2001 was 0.662, and recently [green triangles after the red one] is has been 0.639, so they have improved. but are not quite there yet. I think we have gone around the bush too many times on this. Man up and accept the data so we don’t need to do this again, and again, and again… [seems we still have to…]
Wolf did not have the benefit of the extra observers, or the clearer skies and mainly used his 37mm telescope with a filter.
He had several assistants and an extensive network of external observers. He himself found that he could compensate for the smaller scope by multiplying his counts by 1.5 to align it with his standard telescope, the 80mm. Should we not trust him on that? Who can best judge this? Wolf or us? I’ll go with Wolf on that.
There is no way you can claim the two counting methods can be compared, and this is before applying the big jump imposed by the Waldmeier factor.
I’m not making that claim, Wolfer from 16 years of simultaneous observations [Wolfer using the 80mm and Wolf using the 37mm] is making that claim based on thousands of observations. In any event, Wolfer’s is the better way [every competent observer agrees] and the best we can do with the old Wolf data is to correct its deficiencies by comparing with the geomagnetic record, which actually works pretty well [Wolf did that himself with the data before 1849].
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 12, 2011 at 8:30 am
” http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sidc_noaa1.png ”
As the long-term ratio is 0.66, use that instead of 0.60 and show the result.
Anticipating that you will not do this [too painful?] I have done it for you. Here is what your plot should look like:
http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-NOAA-2010-2011.png
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 12, 2011 at 10:42 am
Anticipating that you will not do this [too painful?] I have done it for you. Here is what your plot should look like:
http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-NOAA-2010-2011.png
The fact that you have to go higher than 0.6 says it all. Looking at the long term trend there is nothing to show the SIDC is under counting compared with NOAA.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/noaa_sidc_factor.png
If we look deeper at the daily records more can be uncovered. Locarno measured 23 days in March. If we total the raw count from Locarno over those days we get 2125. The same exercise done with NOAA’s raw count shows us 1877. Over those 23 days the difference between the SIDC finished count and Locarno raw is a factor of 0.66. It doesnt matter which way you slice and dice, the SIDC counted higher than NOAA for March.
When comparing the Catania and Locarno drawings for 30th March it would be more honest to look at the whole drawings. Catania counts more specks and is a better representation of the umbral areas.
Geoff Sharp says:
April 12, 2011 at 7:36 pm
“Here is what your plot should look like:
http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-NOAA-2010-2011.png ”
The fact that you have to go higher than 0.6 says it all. Looking at the long term trend there is nothing to show the SIDC is under counting compared with NOAA.
There is nothing magical about the 0.6. The long-term mean is 0.6592, so one must use that. All other observers agree that SIDC is too low after some time in 2001. Your graph is flawed: you should not connect the points with a line. Other than that, your graph is no different from mine so “Why bother with a confusing graph”.
If we look deeper at the daily records more can be uncovered. Locarno measured 23 days in March. If we total the raw count from Locarno over those days we get 2125. The same exercise done with NOAA’s raw count shows us 1877.
Actually NOAA’s is 1904.
Over those 23 days the difference between the SIDC finished count and Locarno raw is a factor of 0.66.
SIDC for those 23 days has a sum of 1296, 1296/2125 = 0.61, not 0.66 as you claim. Perhaps be a bit more candid with the numbers. Helps credibility.
It doesnt matter which way you slice and dice, the SIDC counted higher than NOAA for March.
You can always find single values that are higher, it is called cherry picking. On March 20th NOAA was 47, SIDC was 21, to compare with your 0.6*47=28, so SIDC was seriously undercounted by 7 or 25%! The sum for SIDC for those 23 days was 1296 and for NOAA it was 1904, so SIDC was clearly MUCH smaller than NOAA. The question here is, of course, what k-value to multiply with, and that value is 0.659.
When comparing the Catania and Locarno drawings for 30th March it would be more honest to look at the whole drawings. Catania counts more specks and is a better representation of the umbral areas.
So we look at the second large group: http://www.leif.org/research/Catania-Locarno-2-March-30.png and, lo and behold, we see the same thing that Locarno is much sharper and better defined. Especially the umbral structures and the little ‘tail’ on the largest umbra. This is what ‘more honest’ is.
There is a little trick that the observers have learned and that is to wait a bit on a group and watch for those brief moments of good seeing that often occur, even with mediocre general seeing. This is where the experience of the observer becomes important.
So, to summarize:
1) the telescope doesn’t matter, seeing does
2) SIDC undercounted NOAA [and everybody else] from sometime in 2001, to recover somewhat [but not fully yet] in 2010.
3) nobody is playing tricks with this. I know personally all the parties at SIDC, Locarno, NOAA, and RWG [Switzerland], and can vouch for their integrity and for their careful and meticulous work.
4) Wolf’s old data [and those of observers before him] can be reconstructed to match the well-defined modern method of counting spots that Wolfer introduced.
5) the Waldmeier jump in ~1945 is unfortunate, but can be corrected for.
6) efforts are under way to clean up the confusion and get to reliable common series, celebrating Wolf’s great contribution [even to call the result the Wolf Number], e.g. our Sunspot Calibration Workshop at Sunspot, New Mexico, 18-23 Sept. 2011.
This should be a fitting note to end the [otherwise fruitless] discussion on.
Geoff Sharp says:
April 12, 2011 at 7:36 pm
When comparing the Catania and Locarno drawings for 30th March it would be more honest to look at the whole drawings. Catania counts more specks and is a better representation of the umbral areas.
I added Mount Wilson with its large 42 cm image. Aperture 12 inches = 305mm, focal length 150 foot = 45720mm. Seeing was also 2 at MWO [although they use a reversed scale – but since 2 is near the middle that doesn’t matter]. As you can see it makes no difference to the sunspot image. Even Bill Livingston’s 82 cm image does not make any difference.
http://www.leif.org/research/Catania-Locarno-March-30.png
http://www.leif.org/research/Catania-Locarno-2-March-30.png
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 12, 2011 at 9:29 pm
Lots of text, pictures and bluff but still unable to refute my points. There was an error in one value but there is undeniable difference in the NOAA/SIDC count difference for March. I calculated the .66 factor via a different method (your method is better)which really changes nothing. The numbers say it all along with the long term graph, you have absolutely no evidence that the SIDC is under counting compared to NOAA. The long term graph since 2001 shows a rough 0.6 factor which is where it should be. Prior to that there were some irregular periods.
Your take on the Locarno/Catania images is expected. You wish to see what you wish to see, but forget to mention the speck count is higher via the Catania image. I will keep a gallery of these types of results on the LSC page as they come to hand, letting other people make up their own minds.
To summarize:
(1) The telescope does matter. The 37mm can see less than the atmosphere allows on a good day. The 150mm Catania telescope will pick up minor specks that Locarno can’t resolve (more proof to come).
(2 )You have shown no evidence that the SIDC is under counting NOAA.
(3) I never said anyone was playing tricks.
(4) Wolf’s data was not able to be cross checked by Wolfer during the higher speck activity of a grand minimum.
(5) The Waldmeier jump is extremely unfortunate and is still part of the modern record (SIDC only, but how does NOAA come to a similar count without the factor?). This extreme jump is largely taken out in the LSC.
(6) The confusion does need to be sorted out. Meanwhile we have the LSC for comparing against the Dalton.
(7) This conversation started out discussing that SIDC had over counted NOAA during March. This is beyond question. (o.69)
Geoff Sharp says:
April 13, 2011 at 12:30 am
you have absolutely no evidence that the SIDC is under counting compared to NOAA. The long term graph since 2001 shows a rough 0.6 factor which is where it should be. Prior to that there were some irregular periods.
SIDC is undercounting since 2001 compared to NOAA as the k-factor before that was 0.662 (0.677) and after 2001 0.591 (0.608). You can compute k three ways: ratio between average count, average of ratios on every months [or whatever period you select] (those are the numbers in parenthesis, or [the best, correct, and recommended by Wolf] only compare days where both observers have non-zero spot count. Taking the mean of the two methods gives k=0.6695 before 2001 and 0.5995 after. A difference of 12%. Comparing SIDC with SONNE, AAVSO, AKS, BAA, GFOES, GSRSI, OAA, RWG, TOS, and VVS [see: http://www.leif.org/research/Eddy-Symp-Poster-1.pdf slides 24-25] show that relative to all those [hundreds of] observers, SIDC undercounted by the same 12% [meaning that it was not NOAA that had changed]. So, it is conclusive that SIDC undercounted as I’ve said. Keep denying that reflects badly on you.
forget to mention the speck count is higher via the Catania image.
On the images you selected both observatories have the same speck count [16] and very nearly the same total spot count [38 and 36 – not weighted]. So, no difference on that carefully cherry picked image pairs.
(1) The telescope does matter. The 37mm can see less than the atmosphere allows on a good day. The 150mm Catania telescope will pick up minor specks that Locarno can’t resolve (more proof to come).
As I’ve said so many times [when does it sink in?], the 37cm is too small. The telescope has to be bigger than ~60mm. Wolf compensated for the smaller telescope by multiplying by 1.5. BTW, both Catania and Locarno have the same aperture, 15 cm. The stop down at Locarno actually improves the count, rather than making it smaller [Sergio, pers. comm], as about 80mm is optimal for sunspot counting. Any difference between observatories is due to seeing [and/or observer experience].
(2 )You have shown no evidence that the SIDC is under counting NOAA.
Just shown above.
(3) I never said anyone was playing tricks.
Oh, yes. “Wolf under threat”. You have hinted many times that you think there are deliberate mal-counting.
(4) Wolf’s data was not able to be cross checked by Wolfer during the higher speck activity of a grand minimum.
It was not Wolf’s data. He wasn’t even born. The data Wolf used was auroral counts scaled to sunspot numbers. Making any discussion of threshold meaningless.
(5) The Waldmeier jump is extremely unfortunate and is still part of the modern record (SIDC only, but how does NOAA come to a similar count without the factor?). This extreme jump is largely taken out in the LSC.
NOAA come to a similar count because they deliberately try to align themselves with SIDC [a bit tough since SIDC is a moving target]. The NOAA numbers are a continuation of the American Sunspot Numbers [AAVSO, see http://www.leif.org/EOS/Hossfield-2002JAVSO-31-48.pdf ] and were originally scaled by the infamous ~0.6 factor because existing nomograms used by the US Navy were calibrated to the Zurich scale. Those nomograms are no longer used, so NOAA does not scale any longer to Zurich, but still uses SIDC as a benchmark when calculating individual k-values for the observers. That guarantees that they don’t stray too far away.
(6) The confusion does need to be sorted out. Meanwhile we have the LSC for comparing against the Dalton.
The LSC is useless for that purpose, because it is not calibrated and because the Dalton numbers are not based on sunspots, but on auroral counts. Wolf himself reduced the sunspot-based count [by other observers] by up to 60% when he got [around 1880] a catalog of Swedish aurorae compiled by Rubenson. There is a good explanation of this in Encycl. Britannica, 11th editon (1910). vol 2, pages 927-934.
(7) This conversation started out discussing that SIDC had over counted NOAA during March. This is beyond question. (o.69)
One swallow does not a summer make. You should know that one cannot base general behavior on an isolated case. For April [so far] the ratio is down to 0.586. For February it was 0.550. For January it was 0.600.
Can we now put this to rest?
Geoff Sharp says:
April 13, 2011 at 12:30 am
(2 )You have shown no evidence that the SIDC is under counting NOAA.Not NOAA specifically, everybody else. Comparison with all observers shows that it is SIDC that is the odd-man-out: http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-Undercounting.pgn
To construct this graph, you scale all observers to SIDC before 2001.7. As you can see they all agree with each other and SIDC up to that time. Then use that scaling for the time since 2001.7. You can see that they no longer agree with SIDC [SIDC, the red curve, is too low compared to all the rest]. If the assumption that the scalings before and after 2001.7 were not the same, then NOAA [green curve] and “Rest of the World” [blue curve] would not agree as well as they do.
P.S. your rantings about ‘bluff’ is not becoming a gentleman, and is a poor excuse for ignoring the facts.
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 13, 2011 at 8:46 am
Geoff Sharp says:
April 13, 2011 at 12:30 am
the odd-man-out: http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-Undercounting.png
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 13, 2011 at 8:47 am
Geoff Sharp says:
April 13, 2011 at 12:30 am
BTW, take care when using NOAA or SWPC values. Their monthly values in
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/RecentIndices.txt have transcription errors, e.g. for April 2003 which should be [calculated from the daily values] 114.3, not the repeat of March’s 119.7. Same problem for November 2003 which should be 103.0, not a repetition of October’s 118.9.