|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 15, 2014 15:49:11 GMT
Lockwood et al. have a history of trying to play catch-up. They usually do it poorly, and this is no exception. Here is a short explanation of the counting issue www.leif.org/research/Weighting-of-Sunspot-Counts.pdfThe basic mistake made by Lockwood et al. is the failure to realize that the weight factor depends on the sunspot number. When the SSN is low, the weight is also low [1.1]. When activity is high, the average weight factor is higher [>1.25] because there are then more large spots, which have larger weight. A good average factor is 1.20 with 100% probability. Here is an overview of the International [official, at least for now] Sunspot number [blue curve] and the sunspot number corrected for (divided by weight factor) weighting at Locarno [pink curve]. At the top you can see the correction factor deduced from the Locarno drawings  |
|
dh7fb
New Member
Posts: 25
|
Post by dh7fb on Jul 17, 2014 13:35:33 GMT
Thanks Dr. Leif for explaining the adjusting in dependence of the actual measured SSN. I also try to reflect the SSN correctly and so I multiplied the SSN before 1947 ( I made KISS... before the minimum in 1945) with 1.2 as I read it in one of your papers and did nothing with the SSN monthly data after 1945. Is it still standing or should I change somewhat? Sometimes I had a short look at JoNova ( only short because the discussion was too "steamy" to mee :-) ) and I don't full understand your point that the TSI didn't go down in the years after the max of SC23. When we consider that the TSI depends firstly on SSN and we know that SSN in SC24 is much less ( also over the time, not only in amplitude) than in SC23... the TSI had to be decrease?? In my figure www.dh7fb.de/ssnano/image003.gif where I accumulate the monthly anomalies of every cycle one can see clearly the lowering in SC24 vs. SC23 and SC22. Of course the data before 1850 or so are somewhat ... noisy...anyway... IMO the trend is clear. So where is my gap?? |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 17, 2014 13:54:21 GMT
You can either multiply everything before 1947 by 1.2 or you can divide everything after 1946 by 1.2. We have decided on the latter course as after all it is the data after 1946 that has been inflated. The issue about TSI is not whether it now is lower than in 2000, but if it is lower that in 2003-2005 as Evans claims. I have show many times that it is not, e.g.  . |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 17, 2014 22:28:58 GMT
The second Figure of the Bloomberg report shows that the years have been hot since 1998 but not getting any hotter in spite of CO2 going up, so it does not seem to me as straightforward as the report claims.  |
|
dh7fb
New Member
Posts: 25
|
Post by dh7fb on Jul 26, 2014 8:19:43 GMT
Dr. Leif, a few month ago I had a look at the "climbing speed" of the polar fields after the zero-cross in the SSN- max. Now we have newer data ( wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html ) and so I could make a figure to compare this speed untill 500 days after zero-cross.  The figure shows the smoothed behavior of the fields ( N-S/2) SC21-24 of the available record. Isn't it strange, that the speed of the rebuilding of the polar fields in SC24 is only about 8-16% of the SC before? I noticed your answer "no" to my question if this behavior is a fingerprint for the future max. of the polar fields, anyway... has the community a look at this fact and looks for an explanation? |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 26, 2014 12:54:37 GMT
It is just too early to say. Ask again in two years.
|
|
timb
New Member
Posts: 45 
|
Post by timb on Jul 30, 2014 2:41:25 GMT
You can either multiply everything before 1947 by 1.2 or you can divide everything after 1946 by 1.2. We have decided on the latter course as after all it is the data after 1946 that has been inflated. The issue about TSI is not whether it now is lower than in 2000, but if it is lower that in 2003-2005 as Evans claims. I have show many times that it is not, e.g. . What about irradiance in different spectral bands or different types? I thought UV radiation that generates ozone varies much more significantly over the solar cycle and a drawn out cycle will have a longer period of high ozone generation. Do we have any data on ozone generation during solar cycles? |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 30, 2014 3:07:26 GMT
UV and everything else vary with the solar cycle, so if this cycle is smaller than the previous [which it is] the UV is proportionally smaller too.
|
|
timb
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by timb on Jul 31, 2014 22:12:43 GMT
UV and everything else vary with the solar cycle, so if this cycle is smaller than the previous [which it is] the UV is proportionally smaller too. I was thinking that smaller = longer as well. A drawn out solar max would have a longer temporal component even if maximum irradiance is smaller. We have a long solar maximum but it wasn't clear to me that temporal extension would exactly match smaller irradiance. Do you think the temporal differences in solar max between small and large cycles significantly affect the time that UV radiation is above mean levels? |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 3, 2014 4:02:06 GMT
No, I don't think the timing is important.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 25, 2014 22:33:25 GMT
Dr. Svalgaard:
The solar wind seems to be staying very slow. Is this a normal occurrence during a weak solar cycle?
|
|
anse
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 62
|
Post by anse on Aug 30, 2014 21:50:52 GMT
Dr. Svalgaard, do you think solar max is behind us regarding this cycle ?
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 31, 2014 0:26:13 GMT
Dr. Svalgaard: The solar wind seems to be staying very slow. Is this a normal occurrence during a weak solar cycle? |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 31, 2014 0:26:45 GMT
Yes, and especially near maximum of the cycle.
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 31, 2014 0:28:05 GMT
Dr. Svalgaard, do you think solar max is behind us regarding this cycle ? |
|
