Solar Cycle 24.

It has once again come to the SWPC/NOAA count stuffing circus.

Recently, many spots were counted well before they appeared, and well after they have disappeared.  Some never really were visible by traditional means, i.e. - projection.

It has come to my attention when viewing SOHO MDI Continuum images on LCD monitors that much more is visible than on a CRT.  I base my visibility on CRT, which I still use, and my 70mm F/10 refractor which I project from.  I can still see more on SOHO than I can project, and this is how it should be, for SOHO has no atmosphere to contend with.

Using a LCD display will increase the number of spot visible, right down to the level of incredulous.  Nobody 150 years ago would have seen these spots.  Today's achromats and coatings make a 70mm scope the equal of a Fraunhofer 4" in it's day.  Not only that, but eyepieces are critically improved.  So much so, that to take a 4" refractor of today and compare it to 150 years ago would be highly unfair.

Bottom line is that the  SWPC/NOAA spot count is disconnected from the 10.7 cm Flux, having no basis in reality. The Layman's spot count is vindicated by the work of Debrecen Observatory in Hungary, which has brought it's area counting software to bear on the latest spots. http://fenyi.solarobs.unideb.hu/SDD/QL/2010/index.html

When using the whole spot area of Debrecen (or Layman's Spot Count method) use the formula

Wolf# = Area *.27 * x^y .775 in the Windows Calculaltor.  Compare the results to SWPC/NOAA and watch the latter fall on it collective face.

Robert,

I'ts really beginning to look like option #2 or somewhere in between #1 and #2. I know it's a little early to determine yet, but with most of the spots being specks and considering the recent downturn, it's looking like an L&P prediction come true. Has anyone been monitoring the gauss of these specks, and aif so are they continuing to weaken?

Doug

Thanks for the heads up on this article. I'm new to the site although very familiar with the names I see posted here from other sites.

This is a very interesting article and method of measuring spots. It appears that the graph showing SC24 spot intensity does indeed "show no downward trend," but doesn't show much of an upward trend either as the cycle developes and spots increase on a linear trend, albeit ever so slightly. Time will tell.

While data sets and timing were not perfect, L&P observed a general decrease in magnetivity over time which seemed to run contrary to the development of the cycle. I'm not convinced that the data was that far off not to demonstrate a general trend downward in strength when it should have been on the rise.  What we may be witnessing is simply the symtoms of a solar descent that would have started with SC23. During the Maunder Minimum spots did virtually disappear for long periods due to the depth of the minimum. The Dalton Minimum, on the other hand, did not show the same dearth of spots as to seem to completely disappear. The depth of the minimum due to the strength of the underlying dynamo determines whether the spots will be seen (like plaque that remains plaque). Spots may not entirely dissappear, but rare minimum cycles can be so deep that sunspots seem to disappear. Whether or not that will happen remains to be seen. I can tell you that this current cycle has not behaved as I thought it would.  I am beginning to wonder if it will indeed undercut SC5 which would make it deeper than the Dalton Minimum.

Hats off to the guys at this website for bringing consistency and reason back to sunspot counts. I have been frustrated that we were comparing modern cycles to earlier ones by the NOAA method when there was no real comparison. Speck counting is particularly annoying.

Thanks Again!!