|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 10, 2010 14:41:53 GMT
People were banned for a reason [bad behavior]. Show me the bad behaviour in here....talk to Kevin, I am quite happy to come back under my real name. and have a sex change too  Bad behavior is personal attacks, like "when are you going to stop this charade?". You can disagree with opinion, e.g. "you are wrong", that is accepted behavior. now, I'll grant you that some people don't see the difference. Some of those are accordingly banned for bad behavior. |
|
jinki
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 123
|
Post by jinki on Aug 10, 2010 14:54:57 GMT
Show me the bad behaviour in here....talk to Kevin, I am quite happy to come back under my real name. and have a sex change too :-) Bad behavior is personal attacks, like "when are you going to stop this charade?". You can disagree with opinion, e.g. "you are wrong", that is accepted behavior. now, I'll grant you that some people don't see the difference. Some of those are accordingly banned for bad behavior. Your response has been weak. Either your paper I referenced is wrong or TSI is more variable than you claim. It's not bad behaviour to uncover the truth. Have you considered a career in politics instead of science? |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 10, 2010 14:55:02 GMT
You cannot compare directly Wolf and Wolfer as they had different counting technique. To make a comparison you first have to either scale Wolf up or Wolfer down. Let us scale Wolfer down the way he himself did it by multiplying by 0.6, then Wolf and Wolfer can be compared. Now Waldmeier introduced a jump in 1945. We can either scale earlier values up or scale Waldmeier down. Let's scale the early [Wolfer] values up to be comparable to Waldmeier. When SIDC took over they strove to maintain Waldmeier's scale, so during the 1990s SIDC would have been comparable to Wolf and Wolfer, both scaled correctly. Since 1st August, 2001, SIDC counts have been 12% lower than everybody else's, so SIDC is now too low, just on procedural grounds. This the main point which you agree on. That jump of 22% on your own figures is why the Wolf/Wolfer count is different from today. This is the point fredfriendly is making and why your comment of "The discussion at landscheidt is incorrect and invalid" is wrong or even rubbish? Waldmeier is the 'correct' count because he probably had a better definition of a 'group' taking into account the physical evolution of active regions rather than just accident nearness in location. Trying to go back to the older version is a step backwards and should be avoided. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 10, 2010 14:56:39 GMT
and have a sex change too :-) Bad behavior is personal attacks, like "when are you going to stop this charade?". You can disagree with opinion, e.g. "you are wrong", that is accepted behavior. now, I'll grant you that some people don't see the difference. Some of those are accordingly banned for bad behavior. Your response has been weak. Either your paper I referenced is wrong or TSI is more variable than you claim. It's not bad behaviour to uncover the truth. Have you considered a career in politics instead of science? To wit, you just continue your bad behavior. |
|
jinki
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 123
|
Post by jinki on Aug 10, 2010 15:03:15 GMT
Your response has been weak. Either your paper I referenced is wrong or TSI is more variable than you claim. It's not bad behaviour to uncover the truth. Have you considered a career in politics instead of science? To wit, you just continue your bad behavior. That seems to be your only defense. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 10, 2010 15:05:26 GMT
You cannot compare directly Wolf and Wolfer as they had different counting technique. To make a comparison you first have to either scale Wolf up or Wolfer down. Let us scale Wolfer down the way he himself did it by multiplying by 0.6, then Wolf and Wolfer can be compared. Now Waldmeier introduced a jump in 1945. We can either scale earlier values up or scale Waldmeier down. Let's scale the early [Wolfer] values up to be comparable to Waldmeier. When SIDC took over they strove to maintain Waldmeier's scale, so during the 1990s SIDC would have been comparable to Wolf and Wolfer, both scaled correctly. Since 1st August, 2001, SIDC counts have been 12% lower than everybody else's, so SIDC is now too low, just on procedural grounds. This the main point which you agree on. That jump of 22% on your own figures is why the Wolf/Wolfer count is different from today. This is the point fredfriendly is making and why your comment of "The discussion at landscheidt is incorrect and invalid" is wrong or even rubbish? Agree on? This is what I have told you. And the 22% is probably what the count should be higher, because of better definition of what constitutes a group. Trying to regress to earlier [less meaningful] ways is not good science. The discussion at Landscheidt is wrong because it tries to give the impression that there is something wrong with the modern counting technique, while just the opposite is true: we have learned the hard way how to do it correctly. This does not mean that somebody cannot screw up, like SIDC did in 2001, leading to their undercount. But these glitches are eventually discovered and [hopefully] corrected. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 10, 2010 15:10:33 GMT
To wit, you just continue your bad behavior. That seems to be your only defense. That one need to defend against anything just proves the Bad Behavior point. Kevin was quite right in his assessment of you. You can choose to make amends by sticking to science rather than continuing the personal attacks and smears. |
|
jinki
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 123
|
Post by jinki on Aug 10, 2010 15:16:45 GMT
" Now Waldmeier introduced a jump in 1945."This the main point which you agree on. That jump of 22% on your own figures is why the Wolf/Wolfer count is different from today. This is the point fredfriendly is making and why your comment of "The discussion at landscheidt is incorrect and invalid" is wrong or even rubbish? Waldmeier is the 'correct' count because he probably had a better definition of a 'group' taking into account the physical evolution of active regions rather than just accident nearness in location. Trying to go back to the older version is a step backwards and should be avoided. What is "correct" in your opinion is not what this discussion is about. You state Waldmeier's count is 22% above Wolfer that hopefully we can settle on. This on its own is a valid reason for adjusting the SIDC values to align with Wolf during his reconstruction of the Dalton when comparing SC24. Add to that the change between Wolf & Wolfer method that I can expand on if you wish, the Layman's Count with its attempt to align with Wolf is validated. And please don't introduce how Wolf's reconstruction of SC5 is out by a factor of 2, the proxy records disagree. Lets keep this on track if possible. |
|
jinki
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 123
|
Post by jinki on Aug 10, 2010 15:27:43 GMT
" Now Waldmeier introduced a jump in 1945."This the main point which you agree on. That jump of 22% on your own figures is why the Wolf/Wolfer count is different from today. This is the point fredfriendly is making and why your comment of "The discussion at landscheidt is incorrect and invalid" is wrong or even rubbish? Waldmeier is the 'correct' count because he probably had a better definition of a 'group' taking into account the physical evolution of active regions rather than just accident nearness in location. Trying to go back to the older version is a step backwards and should be avoided. Totally agree, today's current counting method probably aligns itself better with total solar output. Saying that I would rather count spots correctly and let other indices like F10.7 measure the perceived total activity. But you are missing the point, this is not about counting correctly. Against your judgment (which has not been proven yet) we may be entering a solar grand minimum, the first time with modern instruments. To validate this possibility we must measure sunspots as Wolf did. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 10, 2010 15:28:18 GMT
Waldmeier is the 'correct' count because he probably had a better definition of a 'group' taking into account the physical evolution of active regions rather than just accident nearness in location. Trying to go back to the older version is a step backwards and should be avoided. What is "correct" in your opinion is not what this discussion is about. You state Waldmeier's count is 22% above Wolfer that hopefully we can settle on. This on its own is a valid reason for adjusting the SIDC values to align with Wolf during his reconstruction of the Dalton when comparing SC24. Add to that the change between Wolf & Wolfer method that I can expand on if you wish, the Layman's Count with its attempt to align with Wolf is validated. And please don't introduce how Wolf's reconstruction of SC5 is out by a factor of 2, the proxy records disagree. Lets keep this on track if possible. 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. The proxy records? This is what they show:  SC5 does not look well-determined. |
|
jinki
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 123
|
Post by jinki on Aug 10, 2010 15:30:19 GMT
The Layman's Count is not about a new counting method that we should move forward with. There is no threat.
It is purely a comparison method with the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 10, 2010 15:35:34 GMT
Waldmeier is the 'correct' count because he probably had a better definition of a 'group' taking into account the physical evolution of active regions rather than just accident nearness in location. Trying to go back to the older version is a step backwards and should be avoided. Totally agree, today's current counting method probably aligns itself better with total solar output. Saying that I would rather count spots correctly and let other indices like F10.7 measure the perceived total activity. But you are missing the point, this is not about counting correctly. Against your judgment (which has not been proven yet) we may be entering a solar grand minimum, the first time with modern instruments. To validate this possibility we must measure sunspots as Wolf did. You cannot, because his method is not quantifiable. The only thing we can do is to compare his counts with e.g. the geomagnetic proxies and scale his counts upwards to fit [as I have done]. Or modern counts downwards, it doesn't matter which way. And there is the built-in bias that a [unknown] threshold has. Raise the threshold enough and every cycle becomes a Grand minimum. If we scale Wolf correctly, SC5 does not look much different from SC14 [and is still very uncertain, c.f. my plot upthread]. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 10, 2010 15:37:18 GMT
The Layman's Count is not about a new counting method that we should move forward with. There is no threat. It is purely a comparison method with the past. You do not make any comparisons with the past. Where is the comparison of LSC and Wolf? |
|
jinki
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 123
|
Post by jinki on Aug 10, 2010 15:38:29 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. Also Wolfer counted SC14 so you may be off the mark?  |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 10, 2010 15:59:09 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 without such adjustment. Typical, I would say. To boost your integrity a bit, plot Hoyt and Schatten's GSN on the same plot. You can get the monthly values here: www.leif.org/research/GSNmonth.txtThe last column is the standard deviation [~uncertainty]. '-99' is, of course, 'no data'. And you say that you compare LSC with the past. There is no such comparison anywhere, as you have no overlapping data. Comparing LSC now with Wolf SC5 is, of course, not valid as there is no reason they should be equal [claiming Grand minima is, of course, circular]. |
|
