jinki
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 123
|
Post by jinki on Aug 10, 2010 16:10:47 GMT
lsvalgaard "The 22% is a reason to align Wolf with the modern count. Trying to align with Wolf is bad science as we have learned in the meantime how to do it better. If you absolutely want to align with Wolf, then you first scale his numbers up to Wolfer's then scale them further up the Waldmeier's. This puts SC5 at about the same as SC14."There is some argument for a closer correlation between SC5 & SC14, but when looking at the unsmoothed values it falls apart. First you say that you accept my assessment that all pre-Waldmeier counts should be increased by 22%, then you plot SC5 without such adjustment. Typical, I would say. Try to plot Hoyt and Schatten's GSN on the same plot. You can get the monthly values here: www.leif.org/research/GSNmonth.txtIt seems you don't accept your own assessment? You have accepted there needs to be an adjustment, the Layman's Count has done that and SC14 is in the same camp as SC5. Waldmeier came after SC14. We are comparing apples to the best of our knowledge without proposing a new future counting method. If you think it can be done better why dont you start a thread here or elsewhere that proposes a new counting comparison method to compare SC24/25 with SC5/6. If it can be agreed that a new comparison standard is better than the Layman's Count I will happily adopt it and make the necessary changes. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 10, 2010 16:22:36 GMT
First you say that you accept my assessment that all pre-Waldmeier counts should be increased by 22%, then you plot SC5 without such adjustment. Typical, I would say. Try to plot Hoyt and Schatten's GSN on the same plot. You can get the monthly values here: www.leif.org/research/GSNmonth.txtIt seems you don't accept your own assessment? You have accepted there needs to be an adjustment, the Layman's Count has done that and SC14 is in the same camp as SC5. Waldmeier came after SC14. We are comparing apples to the best of our knowledge without proposing a new future counting method. If you think it can be done better why dont you start a thread here or elsewhere that proposes a new counting comparison method to compare SC24/25 with SC5/6. If it can be agreed that a new comparison standard is better than the Layman's Count I will happily adopt it and make the necessary changes. I have accepted that there need to be adjustment? No, I have SHOWN and argued that such adjustment be made, against many who don't want any adjustment. No new future counting technique is needed nor proposed. Just do it right [Waldmeier]. You are not comparing apples to apples, because you do not know what Wolf's apple looked like. The only way to compare SC5, SC14, SC24 is to compare to an independent standard, as Wolf so rightly saw. The magnetic needle [or cosmic rays] affords such a standard [also as Wolf saw]. If you are so happy to make changes, then do this: 1) plot NOAA * 0.6 on your regular plot for today's values 2) plot GSN on your SC5/SC14 plot. To show the uncertainty of the values. Those two things will go along way to get you a modicum of credibility. If you don't, well, it may prove my point. |
|
jinki
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 123
|
Post by jinki on Aug 10, 2010 16:28:31 GMT
It seems you don't accept your own assessment? You have accepted there needs to be an adjustment, the Layman's Count has done that and SC14 is in the same camp as SC5. Waldmeier came after SC14. We are comparing apples to the best of our knowledge without proposing a new future counting method. If you think it can be done better why dont you start a thread here or elsewhere that proposes a new counting comparison method to compare SC24/25 with SC5/6. If it can be agreed that a new comparison standard is better than the Layman's Count I will happily adopt it and make the necessary changes. I have accepted that there need to be adjustment? No, I have SHOWN and argued that such adjustment be made, against many who don't want any adjustment. No new future counting technique is needed nor proposed. Just do it right [Waldmeier]. You are not comparing apples to apples, because you do not know what Wolf's apple looked like. The only way to compare SC5, SC14, SC24 is to compare to an independent standard, as Wolf so rightly saw. The magnetic needle [or cosmic rays] affords such a standard [also as Wolf saw]. If you are so happy to make changes, then do this: 1) plot NOAA * 0.6 on your regular plot for today's values 2) plot GSN on your SC5/SC14 plot. To show the uncertainty of the values. Those two things will go along way to get you a modicum of credibility. If you don't, well, it may prove my point. It's impossible to reason with you. The challenge has been laid down, come up with a better method of comparing SC24/25 with SC5/6 or accept the Layman's count is the best on offer. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 10, 2010 16:38:09 GMT
I have accepted that there need to be adjustment? No, I have SHOWN and argued that such adjustment be made, against many who don't want any adjustment. No new future counting technique is needed nor proposed. Just do it right [Waldmeier]. You are not comparing apples to apples, because you do not know what Wolf's apple looked like. The only way to compare SC5, SC14, SC24 is to compare to an independent standard, as Wolf so rightly saw. The magnetic needle [or cosmic rays] affords such a standard [also as Wolf saw]. If you are so happy to make changes, then do this: 1) plot NOAA * 0.6 on your regular plot for today's values 2) plot GSN on your SC5/SC14 plot. To show the uncertainty of the values. Those two things will go along way to get you a modicum of credibility. If you don't, well, it may prove my point. It's impossible to reason with you. The challenge has been laid down, come up with a better method of comparing SC24/25 with SC5/6 or accept the Layman's count is the best on offer. one can only accept things that are based on reason. You have shown no comparison between LSC and any past counts. Thus there is no reason to even consider LSC. There is no challenge as LSC can be dismissed out of hand, because it is not based on sound principles, but rather is a means to an end [Grand Minimum]. Now, plot the GSN on your SC5 plot [or shall I do it for you?] BTW, from 1861 on, Wolf did not use his earlier [larger] telescope, but a much smaller portable scope with considerably less resolving power. To scale his counts to his earlier telescope he multiplied his raw sunspot numbers by 1.50, so you see, a lot of adjustments have been applied. The solid common thread of all this is his continuous comparison with the magnetic needle, to make sure his scale was not drifting. This comparison we can do [and have done] today and we are thus able to bring Wolf's numbers onto the modern scale.. You have not made any comparisons [many years worth of data is needed for a solid comparison], so the LSC has no claim to represent anything. BTW2: as far as I can tell from your Figure where you plot F10.7, you plot the wrong one of the two numbers given by the Canadians. There is an observed number that is biased by the distance to the sun and an adjusted number that reflects what the sun is putting out normalized to 1 AU. You should plot the latter, which for June was 74.8, not the ~72 you show. You may want to check [and correct] this. BTW3: and at the same time multiply NOAA by 0.6 so as to compare apples with apples. This is what your graph should look like when done right, so apples line up with apples:  where you cannot see the green NOAA curve it is because it is just behind the pink SIDC for perfect agreement. The data points for August are of course based on the first 10 days only. |
|
|
|
Post by fredfriendly on Aug 10, 2010 18:18:18 GMT
Ummm, back on about page 2 I pointed out that different folks count the sunspot number differently, with no discussion of who was correct or whether SC 5 was counted correctly. I find it interesting that different folks use different numbers and some argue about the 0.6 correction being grossly simplistic and only working in "average" cycles.
In the end, it is all pretty irrelevant isn't it? If we are seeing a true grand minimum we are going to learn alot about the sun, and how it affects climate, over the coming years and that is alot more interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 10, 2010 18:38:27 GMT
Ummm, back on about page 2 I pointed out that different folks count the sunspot number differently, with no discussion of who was correct or whether SC 5 was counted correctly. I find it interesting that different folks use different numbers and some argue about the 0.6 correction being grossly simplistic and only working in "average" cycles. In the end, it is all pretty irrelevant isn't it? If we are seeing a true grand minimum we are going to learn alot about the sun, and how it affects climate, over the coming years and that is alot more interesting. Yes, it would be very interesting. In my responses I tried to point out that solar observers do their utmost to preserve and keep up-to-date the valuable sunspot record. This is a never-ending job, and we are doing it pretty well [having some centuries worth of experience and literature on this]. Now, about the K=0.6. If [as I think] during a grand minimum most spots turn into small invisible specks, then indeed the ratio would alter. With too few small spots, the number of spots per group would decrease, and a very low sunspot number would result, as most of the count comes from the small [now invisible] spots. This looks like a too small value of K. So far, we have no evidence from sunspots counts alone that K varies like that. [There are other indications, but for the sake of the argument, let's ignore those for now]. |
|
|
|
Post by fredfriendly on Aug 10, 2010 22:20:11 GMT
...but, if the spots turn into small specks during a grand minimum, and NOAA and others overcount small specks (as they are accused of), then the sunspot number we are using may still be inflated as to use a static correction of 0.6 on very low numbers would seem to have a different mathematical implication than if those numbers were inflated by counting specks, simply mathematically.
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 10, 2010 23:09:08 GMT
...but, if the spots turn into small specks during a grand minimum, and NOAA and others overcount small specks (as they are accused of), then the sunspot number we are using may still be inflated as to use a static correction of 0.6 on very low numbers would seem to have a different mathematical implication than if those numbers were inflated by counting specks, simply mathematically. The idea is that the specks become invisible or much harder to see, thus they will not be counted and the sunspot number will become very low. We know that a sunspot becomes invisible if its magnetic field falls below 1500 Gauss. Suppose that all the thousands of spots in SC25 have field strengths of 1400 Gauss, then the sunspot number would be zero, but the modulation of cosmic rays would still go on [just as it did during the Maunder Minimum]. |
|
jinki
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 123
|
Post by jinki on Aug 10, 2010 23:12:03 GMT
"BTW2: as far as I can tell from your Figure where you plot F10.7, you plot the wrong one of the two numbers given by the Canadians. There is an observed number that is biased by the distance to the sun and an adjusted number that reflects what the sun is putting out normalized to 1 AU. You should plot the latter, which for June was 74.8, not the ~72 you show. You may want to check [and correct] this."
Yes, I am aware of this, the difference on that scale will be very minor. If you have a link for the monthly mean adjusted Canadian F10.7 Flux values I will gladly use.
IF NOAA start using the .6 reduction the graph will be changed, until then their posted numbers are used. Their unadjusted count is used world wide including this site, WUWT widget, spaceweather etc adding extra confusion. The man in the street would not be aware their values are not adjusted.
|
|
|
|
Post by csspider57 on Aug 11, 2010 0:12:25 GMT
Sunspot count methods again  whaaaat.. Laymans count good idea, challenge to keep um honest, so to speak. Leif says best it can be for now. Howz about a new method? 1400 gauss and below makes it a small, then have a medium and a large and well exlarge or something like that a an extra (in addition to the current method) spot count. Small all get counted, everybodys happy.  Hey Leif I thought france was who you think jinki is. I may have been wrong about that. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 11, 2010 0:19:21 GMT
"BTW2: as far as I can tell from your Figure where you plot F10.7, you plot the wrong one of the two numbers given by the Canadians. There is an observed number that is biased by the distance to the sun and an adjusted number that reflects what the sun is putting out normalized to 1 AU. You should plot the latter, which for June was 74.8, not the ~72 you show. You may want to check [and correct] this."Yes, I am aware of this, the difference on that scale will be very minor. If you have a link for the monthly mean adjusted Canadian F10.7 Flux values I will gladly use. IF NOAA start using the .6 reduction the graph will be changed, until then their posted numbers are used. Their unadjusted count is used world wide including this site, WUWT widget, spaceweather etc adding extra confusion. The man in the street would not be aware their values are not adjusted. The middle column of ftp.geolab.nrcan.gc.ca/data/solar_flux/monthly_averages/maver.txtYour site is designed to sow uncertainty and doubt, so it suits you fine that the numbers are different. You are adding to the confusion, by plotting Fahrenheit and Centigrade on the same graph. When [if] you use the 0.6 factor it becomes clear how homogeneous and in agreement the various records are. All you need is to point out in the text that there are great agreement and excellent concordance between the various observers, but that in reporting their numbers not all use the 0.6 factor, but you rectify that. You can even make a point that by bringing them onto the same scale, you are helping to defuse the confusion by showing how well everybody agrees [except LSC, of course]. This would be an excellent way for you to advance the public's understanding of science. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 11, 2010 0:24:20 GMT
Sunspot count methods again whaaaat.. Laymans count good idea, challenge to keep um honest, so to speak. Leif says best it can be for now. Howz about a new method? No need to, the old ones are very good. And it is not easy to make a new method. Solar observers have 150 years of practice in the art. No, the below 1500 will not be counted so skewing the SSN towards too low values. Yep, france is much more reasonable :-) I think jinki has given herself  away well enough |
|
jinki
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 123
|
Post by jinki on Aug 11, 2010 3:09:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 11, 2010 4:40:41 GMT
Yes, there is a big point: to show that NOAA and SIDC track each other almost perfectly and that therefore they do NOT USE DIFFERENT counting technique. Just that one uses miles and the other kilometers. You falsely state "The Monthly comparison graph clearly showing the different counting methods." The counting technique is exactly the same, the result is expressed in different units. This is what you are trying to hide. Now, you can regain integrity by changing the text to say "NOAA and SIDC use the same counting technique, but have chosen to express the result in different units. For comparison we reduce them to the same units so you can see how well they track each other". The way it stands now is deceptive [and I believe it is deliberate]. In fact, NOAA uses the Wolfer method and expresses the result on the Wolfer scale [in Wolfer units]. SIDC uses the Wolfer method, but expresses the result on the Wolf scale. Wolfer [using 17 years of simultaneous data] determined that the scale factor between the two scales was 0.6 and was independent of activity: low and high activity had the same scale factor. I'm tempted to repost all my comments here on your site, hoping that you will respect what you said: "Free speech is the backbone of the internet, don't ever think you can stop it." |
|
jinki
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 123
|
Post by jinki on Aug 11, 2010 6:32:24 GMT
Yes, there is a big point: to show that NOAA and SIDC track each other almost perfectly and that therefore they do NOT USE DIFFERENT counting technique. Just that one uses miles and the other kilometers. If Wolfer You falsely state "The Monthly comparison graph clearly showing the different counting methods." The counting technique is exactly the same, the result is expressed in different units. This is what you are trying to hide. Now, you can regain integrity by changing the text to say "NOAA and SIDC use the same counting technique, but have chosen to express the result in different units. For comparison we reduce them to the same units so you can see how well they track each other". The way it stands now is deceptive [and I believe it is deliberate]. In fact, NOAA uses the Wolfer method and expresses the result on the Wolfer scale [in Wolfer units]. SIDC uses the Wolfer method, but expresses the result on the Wolf scale. Wolfer [using 17 years of simultaneous data] determined that the scale factor between the two scales was 0.6 and was independent of activity: low and high activity had the same scale factor. I'm tempted to repost all my comments here on your site, hoping that you will respect what you said: "Free speech is the backbone of the internet, don't ever think you can stop it." Go for it, I still think you are wrong. They are both kilometers (sunspot number) just that one states a higher value. June just past showing NOAA diverging substantially, plus this link in the 5th column showing how much they can vary www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/RecentIndices.txtPerhaps if you have contact with them suggest they multiply their value by .6 which would end the public confusion. You might also notice I added this line earlier today "(note: if the NOAA values are multiplied by .6 they compare closely to the SIDC values)" just to keep you happy. If Wolfer used 217 years of data that would be different, no one has compared speck activity during a solar grand minimum. |
|
whaaaat.. 
away well enough