Solar Cycle 24 Main Discussion IX

[Bob k6tr]

Sept 27, 2010 17:09:16 GMT dontgetoutmuch said:

Not to go over old and tired ground again, but a SSN of 57?!? I count 47 or do I need my glasses checked?

1108 2 spots
1109 22 spots
1110 3 spots

Total 27 spots

3 groups * 10 per group = 30

Grand Total 57

[dontgetoutmuch]

Yes, I know, except that I'm only seeing...

1108 1 spot
1109 14 spots
1110 2 spots

Total 17 spots
+30 group
=47

I know we have covered this endlessly, but when is a spot a spot and not just... texture is there a threshold for contrast, why are some of those shadows, that are like a thousand others on the sun counted? Not trying to be difficult but... :-)

[fredfriendly]

Sunspot number determination is the most insaenly stupid thing ever, it is kind of like saying the first car had a tiller instead of a steering wheel, so we should always use a tiller. Who gives a crap about Wolf, lets use the real freakin' number!

Is it really a surprise that the sunspot number does not correlate with solar output, or anything else, when the "number" is a completely man-made paradigm that is not correlated, linear or otherwise, with the NUMBER OF SUNSPOTS!!!!!

[annav]

Sept 28, 2010 9:38:02 GMT fredfriendly said:

Sunspot number determination is the most insaenly stupid thing ever, it is kind of like saying the first car had a tiller instead of a steering wheel, so we should always use a tiller. Who gives a crap about Wolf, lets use the real freakin' number!

Is it really a surprise that the sunspot number does not correlate with solar output, or anything else, when the "number" is a completely man-made paradigm that is not correlated, linear or otherwise, with the NUMBER OF SUNSPOTS!!!!!

You are making the common mistake of thinking that sunspot counting is directly correlated to activity. It is activity that is important, and the sunspot number, in contrast to the number of sunspots, correlates to activity.

Look at it this way: Suppose you were counting bubbles in an erratically boiling pot, trying to estimate the heat's energy source.
Some bubbles are huge, some are tiny. There is no meaning to count the tiny ones and the huge ones together as far as energy bubbling goes. Large bubbles carry a lot of energy but are isolated. On the other hand if you have enough small bubbles you can make up for one big bubble in energy. So, by counting groups as ten times the energy of an isolated bubble, on average, every 10 small isolated bubbles have the energy effect of one big one. It is not a perfect proxy for energy, but it is a better one than just counting bubbles ignoring extent of grouping.

Keeping up with this now, even though there are better methods of estimating activity, allows historical continuity, important for the study of the sun.

[csspider57]

Quote Anna V. >..even though there are better methods of estimating activity, allows historical continuity, important for the study of the sun. .<

Thanks Anna

[fredfriendly]

Historical continuity is important, for some aspects of solar study. They are completely irrelevant to others. Thus, why use a historically accurate but crappy measure as your public, most often sited number, for solar activity? Before thermometers people attempted to study temperature, do we use the old measures so we are historically accurate? Do we stay with a time measure that is less accurate and less descriptive of time just becuase we "that is what we do"? This is like using stone age tools, or a car built without computer tech because "that is how we do it". Do we still measure the historical number, sure, but lets find a better number and use it.

Come on, lets get the right measure and agree on it (whether it be 10.7, area of spots, etc.) and move the public perception of solar science out of the age of the Wolf.

[csspider57]

Friendly Fred, why is it when I read your posts I feel combative?
Where oh where is bozo I need to punch something.

Might not be seeing as many spots next cycle Fred.
Dr. S. said where headed for the F10.7 plan ok..ok
Hey the world is at your door step and alot of people are counting sun spots.
It's undercontrol ok..ok

So..Lighten up dude.

[fredfriendly]

LOL! I am a lawyer, it is my job to make you want to punch something...

It is under control, but I think it makes us look a bit silly to the layman out there when we say - "We can see 27 spots, but the sunspot number is 57, of course, the 57 is actually not indicative of solar activity either, but look over here at this neat radio thing..."

Of course, in the age of the Simpsons silly may be a good thing.

[annav]

Maybe they should call it "historical activity number" HAN.
Do not lose sight of the fact that we need the historical data to study the sun.

[lsvalgaard]

Sept 28, 2010 14:17:00 GMT annav said:

Maybe they should call it "historical activity number" HAN.
Do not lose sight of the fact that we need the historical data to study the sun.

Fred and Anna,
The 'sunspot number' is an index, which means it is an indicator, not an actual count. And it is, for all its arbitrariness, actually a good measure of solar activity. This was not clear from the beginning, but 150 years of data shows that it is pretty good.

[fredfriendly]

Thanks Leif-

Would it be better if it actually correlated with the visible sunspot number with a higher R? Could that be achieved with a more linear number not so skewed by group numbers?

[lsvalgaard]

Sept 28, 2010 15:14:55 GMT fredfriendly said:

Thanks Leif-

Would it be better if it actually correlated with the visible sunspot number with a higher R? Could that be achieved with a more linear number not so skewed by group numbers?

The 'skewing' by the group numbers is the genius of the method and is thus vital. On average a group contains about 10 spots, so the sunspot number as defined gives equal weight to both groups and spots. Wolf was in a sense a bit lucky [or had foresight] to define his number the way he did. The sunspot number is good.

[csspider57]

Hey maybe we should title this image "Farewell to Sunspots."
Or as Bob would say "Happy Trails." lol

Beautifful pic.

SUNSPOT MIRAGE: Lately, sunspot 1109 has been attracting the attention of sunset sky watchers. When the sun is dimmed by haze and low clouds, the behemoth spot can be seen and photographed as a dark mark on the solar disk. Yesterday evening in San Francisco, the spot got even bigger when it was stretched and distorted by a lovely sunset mirage:

Mila Zinkova took the picture overlooking San Francisco Bay. "The sun and sunspot 1109 were constantly changing shape as the sun set," says Zinkova. "It was wonderful. A small green flash at the end added nicely to the mood." Click here to view the complete sunset sequence.
www.spaceweather.com/

[fredfriendly]

Leif-

Will the average remain 10 if we are entering a solar minimum? Won't the use of this "average" just skew the number? Why use the "average" and the sunspot number? ?If each group "averages" ten then lest just take each group and multiply by ten. The whole argument seems internally inconsistent and skews numbers upward at low group numbers...as at the beginning and end of cycles the group numbers sure seem to "average" less than ten spots...

[lsvalgaard]

Sept 29, 2010 4:15:58 GMT fredfriendly said:

Leif-

Will the average remain 10 if we are entering a solar minimum? Won't the use of this "average" just skew the number? Why use the "average" and the sunspot number? ?If each group "averages" ten then lest just take each group and multiply by ten. The whole argument seems internally inconsistent and skews numbers upward at low group numbers...as at the beginning and end of cycles the group numbers sure seem to "average" less than ten spots...

Experience shows that the sunspot number also works well at minimum. There is also a Group Sunspot Number that is defined as 12*Number of Groups. The two sunspot numbers agree quite well in annual means [not, of course, on every single day]. We have more than 150 years experience with this and have found that the scheme works well enough to still be useful.
That said, there is evidence that the scheme may be breaking down. See, e.g. www.leif.org/research/SIDC-Seminar-14Sept.pdf
This may have happened before, e.g. during the Maunder Minimum, explaining why few sunspots were seen, e.g. www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf