|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 18, 2016 18:31:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Dec 19, 2015 4:44:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Dec 19, 2015 4:39:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Nov 18, 2015 5:02:07 GMT
We think that a Carrington-type event might occur at any phase of the cycle, with the possibly exception of the year of solar minimum. The torsional oscillation has returned to 'normal' so there will be a cycle 25. Also the solar polar fields are now strong enough [especially in the south] to suggest that cycle 25 will be about as strong as cycle 24, and thus not 'superweak'.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Nov 18, 2015 4:59:28 GMT
We think that a Carrington-type event might occur at any phase of the cycle, with the possibly exception of the year of solar minimum. The torsional oscillation has returned to 'normal' so there will be a cycle 25. Also the solar polar fields are now strong enough [especially in the south] to suggest that cycle 25 will be about as strong as cycle 24, and thus not 'superweak'.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 28, 2015 13:45:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 28, 2015 6:43:12 GMT
Your post shows that you have not looked carefully at the problem. E.g. your notion that the number after 1981 is 'some kind of F10.7'. Leussu et al. do not need a rebuttal, as they are simply wrong. The proper way is to reassess the group count as Schatten and I do in www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-of-Group-Number-1610-2015.pdfThere is no difference between the old and the new 'method'. One simply counts groups and spots as before. The weight factor is not constant, but varies with activity as shown in www.leif.org/research/Effect-of-Sunspot-Weighting.pdfBottom line: you have failed to consider the data and the recent papers. The old series are now officially dead.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 28, 2015 4:52:16 GMT
"trying to hide something?" A Danish proverb seems to be fitting here: "a thief thinks everybody steals".
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 28, 2015 4:48:17 GMT
I have here answered your questions fully. What more is there to say? The old numbers are not of interest as they are flawed. For example: you ask "How is the correction factor calculated from 1981 to present?" The answer is that there is no correction factor for that period. What is not to understand? Do I take it that you are unnerved by the new series? Instead of being excited that we finally got it right.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 27, 2015 19:17:46 GMT
More confusion going on here. I am NOT discussing the Group Sunspot Number. My questions and graph are aimed at the normal international sunspot number (old SIDC values). So I will ask the questions again. The old numbers are no longer of interest. If you are so confused, go study carefully the papers and presentations I have referred you to. We can understand there is confusion if you don't take the trouble to educate yourself a bit.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 27, 2015 19:06:13 GMT
And I'll refer you AGAIN to Clette et al. 2014 that spells all that out in detail. Also to the abstract of our upcoming talk at the IAU General Assembly in Hawaii on August 7th: DE.2.04 – The new Sunspot and Group Numbers: a full recalibration After a 4-year research effort, we present here the first end-to-end revision of the Sunspot Number since the creation of this reference index of solar activity by Rudolf Wolf in 1849 and the simultaneous re-calibration of the Group Number, which leads to the elimination of the past incompatibility between those two independent data sets. Most corrections relied entirely on original sunspot data, using various approaches. Newly recovered historical sunspot records were added and a critical data selection was applied for the 17th and 18th century, confirming the low solar activity during the Maunder Minimum. Over the 19th century, the k scaling coefficients of individual observers were recomputed using new statistical methodologies, like the "backbone" method resting on a chain of long-duration observers. After identifying major changes in the observing methods, two major inhomogeneities were corrected in 1884 in the Group Number (~40% upward drift) and in 1947 in the Sunspot Number (~20% overestimate). Finally, a full re-computation of the group and sunspot numbers was done over the last 50 years, using all original data from the 270 stations archived by the World Data Center - SILSO in Brussels. The new Sunspot Number series definitely exclude a progressive rise in average solar activity between the Maunder Minimum and an exceptional Grand Maximum in the late 20th century. Residual differences between the Group and Sunspot Numbers over the past 250 years confirm that they reflect different properties of the solar cycle and that the average number of spots per group varies over time, as it just happened in the recent unexpected evolution of cycles 23 and 24. We conclude on the implications for solar cycle and Earth climate studies and on important new conventions adopted for the new series: new unit scales (constant "heritage" factors 0.6 and 12.08 dropped for the Sunspot and Group Numbers respectively), new SN and GN symbols and a new version-tracking scheme implemented at the WDC-SILSO, as a framework open to future improvements of those unique data series. Author(s): Frédéric Clette2, Leif Svalgaard3, Edward W Cliver1, José M Vaquero4, Laure Lefèvre2 Institution(s): 1. National Solar Observatory, 2. Observatoire Royal de Belgique, 3. Stanford University, 4. Universidad de Extremadura The group numbers and the sunspot number go hand in hand [since the number of groups is half of the SSN]. The weight factor is discussed here: www.leif.org/research/Effect-of-Sunspot-Weighting.pdfbut is not even used in the 'official' recalculation from 1981 on as it is done without reference to Locarno. The 1849-1861 SSN were too low for several reasons: e.g. use of a different telescope in Bern, mixture of Schwabe and Wolf data, etc. Figure 30 of www.leif.org/research/Revisiting-the-Sunspot-Number.pdf shows that cycle 11 is too low. The [peer-reviewed] revised data are the best we [and anyone] can do with the data available. We are open for valid suggestions if you think you can do better. The following presentation may be of interest: www.leif.org/research/The-July-Seminars-2015.pdfThere is now widespread acceptance of our findings.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 26, 2015 23:16:19 GMT
It is too early to pass judgement on L&P. What we do know is that small sunspots are disappearing. How far that will go, we will have to wait a few years to see.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 26, 2015 22:58:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 26, 2015 22:23:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 26, 2015 22:11:28 GMT
There is no Jose cycle the last 400 years, and the whole hypothesis is debunked here: www.researchgate.net/publication/259743078_Critical_Analysis_of_a_Hypothesis_of_the_Planetary_Tidal_Influence_on_Solar_Activity"The present work is a critical revision of the hypothesis of the planetary tidal influence on solar activity published by Abreu et al. (Astron. Astrophys. 548, A88, 2012; called A12 here). A12 describes a hypothesis that planets can have an impact on the solar tachocline and therefore on solar activity. We checked the procedure and results of A12, namely the algorithm of planetary tidal torque calculation and the wavelet coherence between torque and heliospheric modulation potential. We found that the claimed peaks in long-period range of the torque spectrum are artifacts caused by the calculation algorithm. Also the statistical significance of the results of the wavelet coherence is found to be overestimated by an incorrect choice of the background assumption of red noise. Using a more conservative non-parametric random phase method, we found that the long-period coherence between planetary torque and heliospheric modulation potential becomes insignificant. Thus we conclude that the considered hypothesis of planetary tidal influence on solar activity is not based on a solid ground." Why keep beating a dead horse.
|
|