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
- Monday, April 27, 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:
Geoff Sharp says:
April 20, 2011 at 11:37 pm
“And you take things out of context.”
Predictable response.
Since you knew that you took it out of context, of course you could predict the response.
What it shows us is that the downramp for SC23 is has a better fit than the upramp? http://www.landscheidt.info/images/ri_f10_xy.png
If you had gone to the trouble of reading the Waldmeier paper [at least the abstract and the Figures] you would have seen that Waldmeier shows that there is no difference between the up and down ramps [His Figures 1a (down) and 1c (up), and his conclusion: “die F-R-Relation […] nicht von the Phase des elfjaehrigen Zyklus abhaengt” = the Flux-Sunspot relationship does not depend on the phase of the 11-yr cycle].
Extending his analysis with modern data yields: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-F107-fit-3.png where you can see that for all cycles [except the down-ramp for 23] the up/down ramps [blue/pink symbols and regression lines] behave the same way.
For cycle 23, the green dots show that the population for the down ramp [or rather just since ~2001, since it has nothing to do with up/down ramps] fall below the data before 2001. You have also seen this in your plot [but you should swap the axes], so you confirm this [good]. Now, the lower values since 2001 is due to a combination of
1) SIDC undercounting
2) L&P effect
Since you do not believe in L&P you must attribute all the difference to SIDC undercounting.
Not what they said lately [they are making progress]: “We find something similar [the SIDC under counting] using a bunch of core stations of the SIDC network (excluding Locarno).”
My statement was taken from a private communication with the SIDC in the last few days.
So was mine, you, however have in the past not been quite honest about those ‘private communications’, and that seems to be the case here, again.
I am trying to to determine possible drift reasons for Locarno.
As Frederic states that they see the drift even excluding Locarno, and my own research using ‘the rest of the world’ shows the same, Locarno is just a straw man of yours [since you know Locarno doesn’t matter – having been told so many times].
No drawings, so there is no way to establish the exact use and proportion of Waldmeiers weighting method in practice…only a description.
One must take the description of serious scientists at face value [all the way back to Wolf]. But there are many ways of checking the final result: F10.7, magnetic needle, ionospheric reflection, hundreds of other sunspot observers.
Geoff Sharp says:
April 20, 2011 at 11:37 pm
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/ri_f10_xy.png
Now that you have seen the light that the x-y plot is a powerful technique [used by everybody in the whole wide world to compare instruments and check calibrations], we can take the next step. Find from the x-y plot between Canadian F10.7 flux 1947-1991 what the scaling formula between F10.7 and SSN is, i.e. how to calculate SSN from F10.7. We use 1991 as the cutoff, because the Canadians moved the observatory from Ottawa to Penticton in 1991. Then plot the calculated SSN [blue] and the observed SSN [pink] since 1947: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-Obs-Scaled-Canadian-F107.png
You can then see, by eye, how well F10.7 predicts the SSN, until some time between 1999 and 2001, after which the SSN is observed to be lower than what we would expect from the F10.7 flux. The deficit is due to 1) SIDC undercounting by 12% and more importantly 2) the L&P effect removing the small specks, shifting the distribution towards lower field strengths and thus lower spot visibility http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston-Penn-Distribution.png
Such is the story. Comparisons with NOAA and ‘the rest of the World’ shows that the 12% is a SIDC undercount, as we have seen now several times. There really is anything mysterious here. SIDC has to figure out how their undercount comes about; it is not due to issues about Locarno as they see the same undercounting excluding Locarno from the calculation of Ri. It is not due to Waldmeier weighting as that has been done since at least 1945.
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 21, 2011 at 11:16 am
There really isn’t anything mysterious here.
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 21, 2011 at 8:46 am
And you take things out of context. What was meant was that that a count without the goofy 0.6 factor is king. On my plot, that is the NOAA curve.
A ridiculous statement. The 0.6 factor is crucial when attempting to align with the sunspot record. Just do the right thing and use the official record that you now state is better.
You have also seen this in your plot [but you should swap the axes], so you confirm this [good].
I followed the Waldmeier plot (see I did read it). Can you explain why yours is in reverse?
So was mine, you, however have in the past not been quite honest about those ‘private communications’, and that seems to be the case here, again.
My statement was a direct quote, hence the rabbit ears.
Now that you have seen the light that the x-y plot is a powerful technique.
This powerful tool also hides anomalies and does not tell the complete picture. You and Tapping are making the same mistake. My overlay clearly shows an anomaly between F10.7 and sunspot numbers during 2001-2002, which both NOAA and the SIDC show. This is direct evidence of a decoupling of flux and sunspot number that needs to be investigated but also should be removed when doing comparisons.
Redo your upramp/downramp comparison but starting SC23 downramp at 2003 and you will see the difference. Example HERE.
You are jumping to conclusions too fast, and allowing an anomaly to skew your figures, this becomes evident when viewing the overlay. Also we should only look at records after 1981 when comparing up and down ramps to flush out the SIDC problem. The Waldmeier method seems to fit F10.7 up until 1981, after that there appears to be some overcounting. Also you have all the Locarno drawings, you should be able to show where this undercounting occurs.
So for the sake of the exercise (as there is now doubt in your method), redo your plot in reverse (group sunspot counts after SC23 max) and overlay the Canadian F10.7 values.
Since you do not believe in L&P you must attribute all the difference to SIDC undercounting.
BTW, what happened to L&P during the largest month of SC24 (March 2011), I believe they went missing? For whatever reason this raises more doubts.
Geoff Sharp says:
April 21, 2011 at 8:32 pm
The 0.6 factor is crucial when attempting to align with the sunspot record. Just do the right thing and use the official record that you now state is better.
Wolf established what the sunspot record should be. We should all go back to his scale [with k=1] where NOAA already is. We can align the official record [which I presume you mean to be SIDC] with Wolf by dividing by 0.6.
I followed the Waldmeier plot (see I did read it). Can you explain why yours is in reverse?
But you did not tell us what the word was, so failed the test, and now try to cover up. Mine is in reverse because I wish to see how the sunspot number is calibrated with respect to F10.7 [as F10.7 is the variable whose calibration is not in doubt]. Which is essentially just turning the plot sideways and does not change the correlation.
My statement was a direct quote, hence the rabbit ears.
I don’t think it is the whole truth as we didn’t see the statement. You may be taking something out of context again and construe SIDC’s statement that their undercounting started a bit earlier than my estimate of 2001 [perhaps in 1999] as ‘they do not agree with your research’. This does not mean that they disagree that they undercount, just as to when it started [I can live with 1999].
This powerful tool also hides anomalies and does not tell the complete picture. You and Tapping are making the same mistake. My overlay clearly shows an anomaly between F10.7 and sunspot numbers during 2001-2002, which both NOAA and the SIDC show. This is direct evidence of a decoupling of flux and sunspot number that needs to be investigated but also should be removed when doing comparisons.
No anomalies are hidden. They show up as a cloud of points off the usual band of points, and the 2002 anomaly was not included anyway in the determination of the formula for calculating SSN from F10.7.
Redo your upramp/downramp comparison but starting SC23 downramp at 2003 and you will see the difference. Example HERE.
You should not plot daily values as the many points obscure the relationship which anyway does not hold on scales as short as a day. Monthly values is preferred. Waldmeier even agrees that it only makes sense to compare averages over a month or more. Starting in 2003 shouldn’t make any difference and doesn’t: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-F107-fit-3b.png
The Waldmeier method seems to fit F10.7 up until 1981, after that there appears to be some overcounting. Also you have all the Locarno drawings, you should be able to show where this undercounting occurs.
Overcounting/undercounting? After 1981 SIDC undercounts slightly as you can see directly on the overlay: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-Obs-Scaled-Canadian-F107.png This undercounting becomes worse around 2000 and continues to the present day. The undercounting has nothing to do with Locarno as SIDC reports they find the same undercounting even when Locarno is excluded. [How many times should this be said?]
So for the sake of the exercise (as there is now doubt in your method), redo your plot in reverse (group sunspot counts after SC23 max) and overlay the Canadian F10.7 values.
You don’t make much sense here, but I assume you would say that SIDC after SC23 max is correct and that all data before that are too high. Perhaps express more clearly what you think would convince you. There is no ‘doubt in the method’, it is standard calibration procedure. Aligning on the latter part of the record instead of the first is just a parallel shift of the curves, but that does not change the facts: it makes no difference if you say that ‘SSN is too low compared to F10.7’ or ‘F10.7 is too high compared to SSN’.
BTW, what happened to L&P during the largest month of SC24 (March 2011), I believe they went missing? For whatever reason this raises more doubts.
Again you are spreading your usual, unfounded FUD. Livingston measured 157 spots between March 26-April 1, when the average [Ri] sunspot number was 71. It is time you pay attention to reality rather than to your beliefs. Now, there were no measurements in February because of maintenance [cleaning] of the telescope, this happens too.
Geoff Sharp says:
April 21, 2011 at 8:32 pm
My overlay clearly shows an anomaly between F10.7 and sunspot numbers during 2001-2002, which both NOAA and the SIDC show. This is direct evidence of a decoupling of flux and sunspot number that needs to be investigated but also should be removed when doing comparisons.
All the overlays [mine included] show this and the decoupling is direct evidence of the L&P effect. Remember that the SIDC undercounting is only a small part of the discrepancy [see slides 23-26 of http://www.leif.org/research/Eddy-Symp-Poster-1.pdf ]. The greater part is the L&P effect which, of course, all observers, NOAA and SIDC too, will show. So, such a decoupling [still going on] is the most exciting news in solar physics for many decades, namely that the sunspot number no longer is a faithful representation of solar activity.
The SIDC undercounting is established by slide 23 of the above link, that does not involve F10.7, so has nothing to do with the decoupling.
Geoff Sharp says:
April 21, 2011 at 8:32 pm
My overlay clearly shows an anomaly between F10.7 and sunspot numbers during 2001-2002, which both NOAA and the SIDC show. This is direct evidence of a decoupling of flux and sunspot number that needs to be investigated
Congratulations, you have just discovered the L&P effect in sunspot numbers. Your ‘anomaly’ falls right on the line for the L&P decrease: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-F107-fit-4.png
There is, of course, large scatter near minima where the sunspot numbers are small and hence their ratio uncertain. 2001-2002, however, is close to maximum where the ratio is well-determined. So, no anomaly, just what expected from L&P.
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 21, 2011 at 9:58 pm
Again you are spreading your usual, unfounded FUD. Livingston measured 157 spots between March 26-April 1, when the average [Ri] sunspot number was 71. It is time you pay attention to reality rather than to your beliefs. Now, there were no measurements in February because of maintenance [cleaning] of the telescope, this happens too.
So it is worse than we thought. The 2 largest months so far of SC24 and only 6 days covered. The Layman’s darkness record continues to be at odds with L&P.
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 21, 2011 at 9:58 pm
This has gone on for some time and still myself and the SIDC are not convinced by your proposal. I believe your methods and results would not stand up to proper peer review.
In summary:
Your methods of comparing the SIDC count is erroneous. Sunspot counts should not be grouped together at your discretion that favours an outcome.
You have not provided any proof of SIDC undercounting via the Locarno drawings. (there is ample evidence of overcounting at Locarno as a bi product of the Waldmeier system where the SIDC is higher than NOAA)
The F10.7 values do not support your case. When dissected the F10.7 values support overcounting during certain periods.
Geoff Sharp says:
April 26, 2011 at 11:15 pm
So it is worse than we thought. The 2 largest months so far of SC24 and only 6 days covered. The Layman’s darkness record continues to be at odds with L&P.
Livingston observes on average one week per month, giving an unbiased record of L&P. The Layman’s measures are uncalibrated junk, designed to support an agenda.
Geoff Sharp says:
April 26, 2011 at 11:27 pm
This has gone on for some time and still myself and the SIDC are not convinced by your proposal. I believe your methods and results would not stand up to proper peer review.
The SIDC does not like the idea of discarding the 0.6 factor, but does not dispute that they undercount and are actively engaged in trying to figure out why. All parties involved [SIDC, NOAA, us, other researchers] have agreed to a workshop in September to sort out the mess. This is peer-review of the highest carat which might actually produce progress rather than just controversy.
Your methods of comparing the SIDC count is erroneous. Sunspot counts should not be grouped together at your discretion that favours an outcome.
Those are standard methods for calibrating instruments and measurements. The outcome is determined by the data.
You have not provided any proof of SIDC undercounting via the Locarno drawings. (there is ample evidence of overcounting at Locarno as a bi product of the Waldmeier system where the SIDC is higher than NOAA)
The Waldmeier system has been unchanged since the 1940s. SIDC recognizes that they undercount even when Locarno is excluded, so Locarno is but a convenient, red herring.
The F10.7 values do not support your case. When dissected the F10.7 values support overcounting during certain periods.
Even if you could find isolated instances [which is hard, http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20and%20SSN%202.png ], the overall result is plain. F10.7 is not the only measure that shows the undercount since ~2000. The sunspot areas support the undercounting: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-vs-Sunspot-Area.png and the Calcium K-line measurements at NSO also show the same thing: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-vs-CaK3.png not to speak about comparing with NOAA and the rest of the World: http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-Undercounting.png . Now, the SIDC undercount [12%] is but a small part of the discrepancy caused by the much larger L&P effect, so that has to be kept in mind. Even if SIDC revises their count [as is expected], the L&P result still stands. One can hope that L&P will disappear [which it might as it eventually must], but so far there is no sign of that: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston-Penn-Distribution.png
Geoff Sharp says:
April 26, 2011 at 11:27 pm
the SIDC are not convinced by your proposal
You are, again, not quite honest. Here is what Frederic says [but remember he doesn’t like to be involved in public debate]:
“We find something similar using a bunch of core stations of the SIDC network (excluding Locarno). The discrepancy seems to start earlier, maybe in 1998.”
Note that he agrees there is a discrepancy.
“Following the visit of Locarno observers to Brussels, evidence was scarce for any possible cause of a post-2000 bias. We assembled an action list including investigations to be conducted on both sides in the coming months. For us, it implies modifying the base sunspot index software to carry out test calculations with variable data input choices (pilot station, etc.). So, there is exciting matter for the workshop planned in September. We will try to produce new elements on time for that meeting.”
So, there are two [unrelated] issues:
1) a small [12%] undercount by SIDC
2) a much larger sunspot deficit caused by the L&P effect, which is seen when comparing with many solar indices [F10.7, Sunspot area, foF2 critical frequency, Ca K-line emission, magnetic fields]
Having a firm grip on observational reality is the first step to recognizing and perhaps understanding this remarkable phenomenon. Sticking your head in the sand is not conducive to this.