|
|
Post by flearider on Mar 10, 2014 0:16:06 GMT
are we creating more sunspots ? they used to count what they could see.. then they counted what they could see thru a lens .. from what I can tell they are now counting sun spots that they can't see or spots that haven't quiet made it ? www.solarham.net/farside.htm a lot of numbers but not so many spots ?http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_HMIIF.jpg is this what has taken us to a double peak ? |
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Mar 11, 2014 0:19:29 GMT
The way we count does skew a bit too higher numbers, but Leif Svalgaard has a lot of studies showing that the way we call spots is pretty consistent back to the 1800's or later. He argues the modern maximum is the sunspot high it is because of over-calling but others disagree. www.leif.orgIf you want to real counter-point to that dogma of solar scientists the Layman's Sunspot count is for you: www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50The Layman folks agree with you... |
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Mar 11, 2014 10:43:55 GMT
thx now I see we are in trouble ..  |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 10, 2014 0:32:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by greyviper on Jan 30, 2015 1:09:40 GMT
I don't understand what you mean by creating more sunspots. How can we even affect the sun's activity.
I guess the best way to state it is that we are just learning a understanding a little bit more of our own
star in neighborhood by learning more about the pimples on its face.
|
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jan 31, 2015 16:54:05 GMT
I think that's 'creating a higher sunspot number' rather then physically making the sun have more spots on it greyviper!  |
|
|
|
Post by greyviper on Feb 2, 2015 5:04:26 GMT
I think that's 'creating a higher sunspot number' rather then physically making the sun have more spots on it greyviper! yeah, exactly. the spots could have been there. we just discovered it recently that's why the number became higher. |
|
|
|
Post by marie42 on Jul 10, 2015 2:25:09 GMT
I would really appreciate some insight into this. (It looks like they REALLY messed with the historical data... bad) www.stce.be/press/01/welcome.htmlWe no longer have a historical frame of reference for SSNs. (I had a funny feeling that they'd do exactly what they did. If I'm reading this right, they took away the connection between solar activity and temperature fluctuations here on Earth.) |
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jul 10, 2015 17:11:05 GMT
You should ask Leif Svalgaard in the topic above this one, he was a driving force behind this move. Personally i'm not too worried if they mess with the SSN, in reality counting sunspots has been rather subjective and the baton was passed from one individual to another (initially, its more of a pixel count these days?) different interpretations were produced which have influenced the record.
One neat thing is Dr. Svalgaard knows the guy who owns the telescope used by Rudolph Wolf who commenced the sunpots count series. So it is possible to cross reference what we see now with what was seen in 1848.....not a bad tool to have!!
the off shoot of all the above is cycle24 looks even weaker in the record.......
--(I had a funny feeling that they'd do exactly what they did. If I'm reading this right, they took away the connection between solar activity and temperature fluctuations here on Earth.)--
If by this you mean the recent 'solar maximum', i see your point, but even when reduced, it was still a series of consistently big cycles. I reckon the minimums are more critical anyhow.....
|
|
|
|
Post by gsharp on Jul 10, 2015 18:06:16 GMT
I think we need to look at the detail of the new SILSO version of the sunspot record. I am currently plotting the old against the new and some questions are arising.
It's early days, but the Waldmeier factor from 1947 does not look to be adequately allowed for. The adjustments also look to be sporadic since 1947 which is unexplained.
When looking at the Group numbers I am totally unconvinced, the SILSO sunspot count is perhaps looking like the Svalgaard sunspot count?
|
|
|
|
Post by marie42 on Jul 10, 2015 18:27:51 GMT
What's bugging me is that they make the modern maximum look more 'normal'.
|
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jul 10, 2015 18:46:39 GMT
But again....it is a subjective thing....the ssn was never standardised so WAS the modern maximum such a thing? If you are of an opinion we need a modern maximum to account for 'co2' effects, then a possible cold future will equally do the same, regardless of sunspot count? gsharp seems to be more on the ball regarding the details then i....look forward to seeing your results gsharp  |
|
|
|
Post by gsharp on Jul 11, 2015 6:52:45 GMT
Here is the old and new SILSO data along with the correction factors. By my maths the Waldmeier correction factor of 15% or less from 1947 looks too low. Also the correction factor 0.6 from Wolf to Wolfer was only tested in the late 1800's for 17 years and was not tested over solar grand minima. Can we assume the 0.6 correction factor is valid over different types of solar cycles?  www.landscheidt.info/images/SILSO.png for a full size view SILSO state: After intensive verifications and some inevitable bugs, we have now successfully completed this transition. The new numbers for June seamlessly extend the recalibrated historical sunspot series. Except for the announced elimination of the 0.6 conventional factor, absolutely no tweaking of the data was done
I would like to learn how the factor was calculated after 1981. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 21, 2015 14:21:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by gsharp on Jul 22, 2015 4:11:55 GMT
It would be good to get some straight answers to some straight questions regarding SILSO V2 rather than trolling through 100's (literally) of pages of your papers. The 0.6 correction factor is in effect still in use as it is setting up a relationship between Wolf (incl pre Wolf) and Wolfer. Your statement is very misleading as there looks to be a ratio change between pre Wolf, Wolf and Wolfer? What is the % correction factor for the Waldmeier Jump between 1947 and 1981? How is the correction factor calculated from 1981 to present? Why have the original SILSO V1 values between approx 1840-1870 been raised in V2? |
|
