|
|
| Click for full size view |
|
|
| Click for full size view |
|
|
|
Tip: If the above image is split vertically, the left half of the image is what we can't see from Earth. Click for full size view |
|
|
| Click for full size view |
|
|
| Click for full size view |
|
|
| Click for full size view |
|
|
| Hourly Update, yellow trace=km/s Click for full size |
|
|
| Click for full size view |
Donations graciously accepted, with some luck I might make the next AGU conference.
Layman's Count Forum HERE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE: The Layman's count has moved from the SOHO satellite and now uses the far superior images of the SDO. The sunspot threshold is now 333 pixels, not 23 pixels, because of the added picture resolution.
|
|
2010/09/03 08:00 1101 today in heavy decay mode and in the process spawning new outlier specks forming from a build up of positive zones. Negative zones on both sides now as seen on the magnetogram. The pixel reading at 1924 (2605), the darkness ratio crumbling back to 54% (66%). SIDC releasing their monthly mean at last, they must have been embarrassed at their count of 19.6, NOAA at 28.3 (prelim) but adjusted would be 17. The LSC is way lower at 11.3 with the speck counting going mad this month. Their values are way overstated compared with how Wolf counted. Many specks this month.
|
|
|
2010/09/03 08:00 New area 1105 labeled by NOAA and measures 820 pixels , the darkness ratio at 63%, not looking strong at this point. 1102, 1103 & 1104 will not be counted today. Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of ? (78.0) and a low of ? (77.1), no flux figures today as yet. The DSN value for the today is 1137 with the previous at 1490 . Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1.
|
Daily/Monthly records below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updated to 31st July 2010 (click graphs for full size)
My predictions show that SC24 will be similar to SC5. The same Solar system forces are in play at similar timings and strength (SC24 perhaps showing a stronger disruption strength, which indicates that SC24 should be a smaller cycle than SC5). This graph using the SIDC monthly count from Jan 1798 will compare the Layman's Count from Jan 2008. The Layman's Count is the only count that can properly compare with the old SIDC (Wolf) measures. SC14 has been added for interest (starts Jan 1901) all 3 records beginning at the end of their previous cycle (where the downramp meets the bottom). The unsmoothed numbers showing the big swings in SC14.
This is the first time modern science can measure a possible grand minimum...we might find that grand minima are simply one hemisphere closing down. Will there be enough sunspot activity in the south to allow the transportation of the reversing flux necessary for a polarity change?...lets see how it pans out.
The Monthly comparison graph clearly showing the different counting methods. The NOAA method departing from the Wolfer method by not adjusting the raw count (NOAA do not multiply by 0.6). The SIDC using the Wolfer formula which I believe is flawed during times of high speck ratio and also requires scrutiny at times (eg SIDC occasionally recording a count when others do not). A full monthly summary can be found near the end of this page along with the Recurring Regions Table.
A BRIEF HISTORY ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE SUNSPOT COUNT.
Johann Rudolf Wolf born in 1816 reconstructed the sunspot record back to 1749 using the geomagnetic record as his baseline. Wolf used this background scale to adjust the values taken before 1847 to align with his count. Wolf was the inventor of the sunspot formula R=k(10g+s) which translates to sunspot number = a local adjustment factor to allow for telescope differences X 10 for each group + 1 for each spot. During his lifetime while counting spots he used the K factor to align other observers and indeed his own records that were taken with his smaller portable telescope. The portable telescope having a magnification of 40 compared to the larger telescope of 64. During this time he did not count small spots and specks, probably knowing the 10 value per group would lead to inaccuracies and also the smaller telescope possibly setting the threshold size. History I think has proven his initial method should not have been tampered with.
His successor Wolfer went his own way and began counting specks and small spots but stabilized the K factor at .6 in an attempt to align himself with Wolf’s count (Wolfer did this over 17 years, but never experienced a grand minimum). This is where the modern system started to drift higher. Wolfer was unaware that during grand minima where the speck count could be much higher the .6 K factor would not be sufficient to stop the values being overstated. The ratio of specks is where the problem lies.
The evolution of the sunspot record has made it difficult to formulate a homogeneous record. Before Waldmeier there was one primary observer who was at the mercy of local conditions. Today we have multiple observers that must put upward pressure on the historic counts, the SIDC have 80 observers covering the globe of which 30% are professional. These results are averaged over 24 hours to gain a result. Modern observatories mainly use the same magnification as Wolf's larger telescope but whether the optics are comparable is debatable. Motor driven, auto cooled telescopes sitting on mountain tops is a far cry from Wolf's portable telescope. Wolf used a 1.5 K factor when using his smaller telescope, but 1.5 x zero is still zero. We must also be aware of modern counting methods that are different to Wolf's method, NOAA have decided to run their own system that is not designed to line up with the past. In essence they do not take on Wolfer's 0.6 reduction factor to account for the small spots and pores that Wolf did not count. NOAA have their method which differs from the historical record that is unfortunately prevalent across many media outlets.
The SIDC count is the internationally accepted standard that follows the Wolfer method but does not exactly follow his .6 reduction which has drifted since the days of Waldmeier. Also the increased speck ratio in recent times making the problem more noticeable. The SIDC count over selected times has been questionable with a recorded sunspot record on days where NOAA counted zero?
Recent analysis HERE suggests the modern SIDC sunspot record is at least 22% higher than the late 1880's Wolfer values. By isolating specks and adopting the SIDC count as a baseline the Layman’s Count although not perfect attempts to redress some of the modern issues and should compare more favorably to Wolf’s reconstruction of the Dalton Minimum cycles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE LAYMAN'S COUNT METHOD & HISTORY
There has been a lot of comments recently about the tiny specks that have been counted as sunspots. A tiny speck can get a daily count of 11 which severely skews the record. Also I have noticed on the SIDC record some days where the Sun is completely blank but the records show a sunspot count. NOAA is another magnitude higher than the SIDC, NOAA using a different method not meant to compare with the historical count. During times of high speck count we need a new standard to record sunspots that gives us a realistic measure of today's activity verses the last Grand Minimum.
Robert Bateman a very motivated amateur solar enthusiast and myself started a thread at www.solarcycle24.com (which has unfortunately developed into an anti Landscheidt, Pro AGW forum) and soon devised a plan to come up with a reliable standard. We would use the existing SOHO 1024 x 1024 Continuum images and measure the pixels involved in a Sunspot. Initially it had to be determined what a standard sunspot should represent in size and density, to try and represent a minimum counter like Wolf may have done 200 years ago. After some deliberation and advise from Robert who also dabbles in Astronomy with his own equipment, we came up with a minimum standard.
To be counted, a sunspot or group must have 23 pixels which have a reading in the green channel of 0-70 for at least 24 hours. Note: This has now been superceded, see below.
All pixels in a digital image have a RGB reading which split out into separate Red, Blue, Green channels and can be easily measured and counted in one action using a freeware graphics program called GIMP.
So the standard was set, which now enabled us to go back over the records and weed out the offending specks and blank days.
The official Layman's Sunspot Count is compared against the SIDC record which is considered conservative when compared with other institutions involved. Basically we use the same sunspot number as SIDC but replace them with zero on days that don't make the grade. When the SIDC count is made up of two or more areas and if any of the area's do not make the Layman's Count, the overall SIDC daily count will be reduced by the areas that fail. Spots that count 23 pixels and over before midnight and then continue on to pass the 24 hour rule will take the SIDC value of that day. Existing Spots that have made the grade but measure less than 23 pixels at midnight are not counted on the next day.
Displayed below is the recent solar activity along with the results of the weeded SIDC record. The data & graphs will be updated monthly soon after SIDC post their record which is usually at the start of each month.
NEW LAYMAN'S COUNT METHOD UTILIZING THE SDO HIGH DEFINITION IMAGES.
The SDO images are now available and used for the Layman's Sunspot Count. Several high quality images are provided every hour making the counting process more accurate and reliable. The method will use the 5Mb 4096 x 4096 SDO fast-look Continuum images which will be measured at 8.00 UTC daily. Because of the amount and size of images the determination of sunspot records will be performed once per day at 8.00 UTC.
The minimum pixel area is now 333 pixels (0-150 in the green channel) which calibrates to the old 23 pixel threshold used on the SOHO images. The area conversion factor is 6.91%. The 24 hour rule will stay in place.
We now have SOHO as a backup satellite.
NEW AREA BASED MEASUREMENT.
A new counting method will run in conj
unction with the Layman's Count. It will be an area based method but taking into consideration the darkness or magnetic strength. This is an alternative method which intends to accurately measure area and magnetic strength which should alleviate the current problems with speck counting. A daily reading around 8:00 UTC will measure solar face pixel area and darkness, these will be combined to produce a DSN value (Daily Sharp Number) :) Click on the graph for more data.
The DSN will hopefully be a better gauge of the true spot strength and may be a useful value when comparing with the F10.7Flux.
The DSN formula: pixel area value x darkness percentage ie a spot that measured 37 pixels with a darkness ratio 54% would be 37 x 5.4 = 199.8 (multiply the result X 6.91% if using SDO image) Note: The SDO images are not able to be calibrated against the SOHO images for darkness measurements with accuracy. Higher readings display about a 5 % reduction when compared with SOHO and the reverse applies to lower readings. The DNS values will not be impacted to any degree but the darkness ratio graph will continue to use SOHO readings.
The DSN method will not use the 23 pixel or 24 hour rule but will use the same green channel readings from the Layman's Count and darkness ratio methods. The information will be collected per hemisphere and made available to interested parties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER NEWS
|
|
2010/09/02 08:00 1101 has been in decay mode today shrinking down to 2605 pixels (2967), the darkness ratio moving back to 66% (64%). Today this unipolar spot has been bleeding off magnetic material to its right where the negative polarity areas have dominated. This is a peculiar trait of unipolar spots, which ejects magnetic material which is consumed by magnetic flux cancellation as it moves to its opposite polarity area. The SDO produces a daily animation where this process can be viewed, the links are at the bottom of the article found HERE. |
|
|
2010/09/02 08:00 1102 has fallen back sharply and wont be counted today. The area measures 281 pixels (1042), the darkness ratio remaining the same at 52% (52%). Two new regions named by NOAA 1103 & 1104 that don't meet the threshold. There will be a big discrepancy in counting methods today. No word from the SIDC on August figures yet. Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 78.0 (76.9) and a low of 77.1 (74.0), the specks being more powerful than 1101. The DSN value for the today is 1490 with the previous at 1686 . Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1.
|
|
|
2010/09/01 08:00 1101 falling back slowly with a pixel reading of 2967 (3152), the darkness ratio also dropping back to 64% (67%). Solar activity remains quiet. Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 76.9 (76.8) and a low of 74.0 (74.6), not much happening. The DSN value for the today is 1686 with the previous at 1842 . Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1. |
|
|
2010/09/01 08:00 1102 remaining about the same and now measures 1042 pixels (1046), the darkness ratio dropping slightly to 52 (53%), The evolution of this group suggesting a move towards a unipolar outcome. Time is running out but maybe on the next rotation a result might follow. Some extra research into the Negative Sunspot today showing encouraging signs, extra updates available HERE.
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
2010/08/31 08:00 1101 perhaps peaking out with a pixel reading of 3152 (3245), the darkness ratio also dropping back to 67% (69%). The magnetogram suggesting a change of polarity. There is a new discovery....the Negative Sunspot that possibly reduces F10.7 & EUV. Article HERE Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 76.8 (75.4) and a low of 74.6 (74.6), 1102 starting to influence a small rise. The DSN value for the today is 1842 with the previous at 2067 . Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1. |
|
|
2010/08/31 08:00 1102 has fallen back and now measures 1046 pixels (1157), the darkness ratio dropping back to 53% (65%), this group showing signs of finishing. There is a big discrepancy between NOAA and Catania on this group in regard to the pore count. I am suspicious of Catania's observing powers, the Wolf telescope replica of sorts that I am setting up might give a few clues. UPDATE: NOAA & Catania now in agreement. |
|
|
2010/08/30 08:00 1101 growing slightly with a pixel reading of 3245 (3151), the darkness ratio growing strongly to 69% (64%), the penumbral area visibly darker. Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 75.4 (73.3) and a low of 74.6 (72.2), 1102 starting to influence a small rise. The DSN value for the today is 2067 with the previous at 1672 . Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1. I have all my Wolf telescope parts ordered and in process... |
|
|
2010/08/30 08:00 1102 has grown and now measures 1157 pixels (559), the darkness ratio dropping back to 65% (72%). The magnetic region for this group on the magnetogram growing slightly. There is a new paradigm in town regarding sunspots that may only be observed during times of grand minima. Part one of a new article HERE with all the details. |
|
|
2010/08/29 08:00 1101 growing again today with a pixel reading of 3151 (2752), the darkness ratio dropping slightly to 64% (68%), Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 73.3 (75.4) and a low of 72.2 (74.0), a substantial drop, something not right here. The DSN value for the today is 1672 with the previous at 1293 . Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1. I have all my Wolf telescope parts ordered and in process... |
|
|
2010/08/29 08:00 A new area has emerged at the meridian. 1102 is small at this stage and measures 559 pixels, the darkness ratio is impressive at 72%. The magnetic region for this group on the magnetogram is not looking strong. There has been an overall slow upward trend in growth as seen in the DSN values over the past week. The F10.7 Flux values have shown negative growth over the same period, getting down to solar minimum levels. Check out Leif Svalgaard's graph HERE. |
|
|
2010/08/28 08:00 1101 growing slowly again today with a pixel reading of 2752 (2303), the darkness ratio rising now to 68% (64%), remember the new daily darkness reading is lower than the old scale. Month end getting close, August not looking strong. Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 75.4 (75.0) and a low of 74.0 (74.0), the flux value telling the story. The DSN value for the today is 1293 with the previous at 1018 . Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1 |
|
|
2010/08/27 08:00 1101 growing again today partially due to approaching us more straight on. Today's pixel reading is 2303 (1607) with a darkness ratio rising now to 64% (57%) . 1100 in the south has just 6 pixels remaining (49). Yesterdays raw readings: Catania 33, NOAA 23, LSC 11. The specks providing the big differences. I am setting up a telescope to mimic Wolf's Pocket scope, I am just waiting on a vintage eyepiece...It should be interesting. Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 75.0 (75.1) and a low of 74.0 (73.8), remaining very low. The DSN value for the today is 1018 with the previous at 650. Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1 |
|
|
2010/08/26 08:00 1101 coming into view and showing the penumbral flux tubes, there is also a single speck still lingering above this region. Today's pixel reading is 1607 (965) with a darkness ratio of 57% (50%) . 1100 in the south has a few pixels remaining now at 49 (79) but once again this region and the speck above 1101 not seen by Wolf.. Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 75.1 (75.3) and a low of 73.8 (74.4), still heading down, surprisingly. The DSN value for the today is 650 with the previous at 370. Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1 |
|
|
2010/08/25 08:00 1101 and other single alpha spots seem to be setting a trend this month. Today's pixel reading is 965 (362) with a darkness ratio of 50% . There is a couple of faint pixels above this region that so far read zero. 1100 in the south has some small returned action at 79 pixels but will not be counted today. Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 75.3 (76.5) and a low of 74.4(75.6), still heading down, surprisingly. The DSN value for the today is 370 with the previous at 133. Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1 |
|
|
2010/08/24 08:00 A new upwelling has broken the spotless run. There was no warning on Stereo Behind of what will probably be numbered 1101 in the next 24 hours. The early pixel reading is 362. The solar wind picking up now to strong levels courtesy of a nice Earth facing coronal hole. Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 76.5 (76.3) and a low of 75.6(75.3), very low but should pick up soon. The DSN value for the today is 133 with the previous at 29. Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1 |
|
|
2010/08/23 08:00 Today is the 8th SPOTLESS day. Region 1100 has regained a few pixels (67) which is less than 5 pixels on the old scale, this will most likely be picked up by some observatories. A weak area on Stereo Behind now moving onto the northern face which is just plage at this stage. The solar wind still very low. Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 76.3 (77.6) and a low of 75.3 (76.4), very low and still dropping. The DSN value for the today is 29 with the previous at 0. Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1 |
|
|
2010/08/22 08:00 The SDO & SOHO not updating today, but GONG proving ever reliable, soon I will be able to add a reading from my own telescope to the mix (with Wolf values). Today is the 7th SPOTLESS day with a question mark on how long? The pipeline does not look loaded, this month still has a chance of being low. The solar wind just escaping the Sun's gravity for now. Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 77.6 (78.9) and a low of 76.4 (77.8), getting back to solar minimum figures.. The DSN value for the today is 0 with the previous at ?. Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1 |
|
|
2010/08/21 08:00 The flat SDO Continuum pics have not been updated today but all other sources are showing the 6th SPOTLESS day. Catania counting 11 raw from a mystery 1 pixel speck in the south and NOAA at this stage counting spotless. Once again another example of the ridiculous state of affairs. Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 78.9 (79.8) and a low of 77.8 (78.8), getting back to solar minimum figures.. The DSN value for the today is ? with the previous at 8. Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1 |
|
|
2010/08/20 08:00 Day 5 of our SPOTLESS run. 1100 in the south measures 34 pixels (41) which is just 2 pixels on the old scale. Catania counting 2 areas today at 23 raw, NOAA counting 11, there is no doubt Wolf would have counted zero. I have just ordered a solar telescope hoping it might answer a few questions. A new upwelling might be required as there is nothing on the horizon right now. Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 79.8 (82.5) and a low of 78.8 (82.5), here we go again. The DSN value for the today is 8 with the previous at 19. Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1 |
|
|
2010/08/19 08:00 The lull does look to be happening as we have our 4th SPOTLESS day. 1098 has gone with 1100 in the south a minor speck at 41 pixels (109). There is another speck of 13 pixels in the same area. Catania counting a full spot today at 11 raw, NOAA still deciding. Update: NOAA falling into line and counting the speck as 11. Here is the SOHO image, what do you think, let me know. Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures are not updated yet, only one value at 82.5. The DSN value for the today is 19 with the previous at 86. Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1. |
|
|
2010/08/18 08:00 As we rack up our 3rd SPOTLESS day of August two small specks remain. 1098 has dropped further to 60 pixels (277) and 1100 in the south has grown slightly to 109 pixels (85). Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 84.8 (86.9) and a low of 82.2 (85.8) now starting to drop. The DSN value for the today is 86 with the previous at 176. Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1. |
|
|
2010/08/17 08:00 The returned region 1098 (CL302) has not passed the 24 hour rule, so today is the 2nd SPOTLESS day of August.The pixel reading has dropped to 277 (414) with the darkness ratio at 69% (77%). Yesterday Catania (SIDC) had a raw reading of 62, which discounts to 37. NOAA measured one group less and arrived at 39 (unadjusted), the major institutions showing the weakness of counting specks. It is extremely likely Wolf would have measured zero like us. Future activity is looking bleak right now. |
|
|
2010/08/17 08:00 Newly NOAA labeled region 1100 (CL202) is the return of 1089 but not making the grade so far. This region will need to grow to make the Recurring Regions Table. Today the pixel reading was 85 with the darkness ratio at 75%. Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 86.9 (87.8) and a low of 85.8(85.9) some plage about stopping the fall. The DSN value for the today is 176 with the previous at 338. Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1. |
|
|
2010/08/16 08:00 UPDATE: 1098 did not pass the 24 hour rule. Today is SPOTLESS . The visible face reduced to speck activity. A new region in the north that is weak measures 414 pixels and 77% on the darkness ratio, the 24 hour rule is in place. 1099 measures 164 pixels and the returning region 1089 looks weak so far at 60 pixels. There are some other minor pixels in the north that have been added to the DSN. Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 87.8 (87.4) and a low of 85.9 (86.8) some plage about stopping the fall. The DSN value for the today is 338 with the previous at 552. Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1. |
|
|
2010/08/15 08:00 1093 has fallen to a very small group and will not be counted today. The pixel reading is at 252 pixels (876). The darkness ratio staying constant at 56% (56%). There is some very minor speck activity around the meridian and the old region 1089 is so far not showing signs of spot activity in the south. There is a chance of a spotless day heading our way. |
|
|
2010/08/15 08:00 1099 has grown very slightly to 1094 pixels (1054) The SDO images making this area appear larger, which we will get used to. The darkness ratio has taken a big dive back to 60% (71%). This group will score high because of the speck factor. A lot of the associated specks Wolf would not have counted. Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 87.4 (86.1) and a low of 86.8 (86.0), overall a low reading. The DSN value for the today is 552 with the previous at 856. Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1. |
|
|
2010/08/14 08:00 1093 is breaking up and has reduced to 876 pixels (1586). The darkness ratio staying constant at 56% (56%). In the south a plage region is rotating into view that should be old area 1089. Some are confusing this area as the recurring regions of 1078 & 1084 which have a Carrington Longitude some 60 deg different. The first half of August has been mixed with the activity in a different league compared to earlier this year (13,000 pixels on the new scale was not uncommon). I wouldn't be surprised if another lull was in store soon. |
|
|
2010/08/14 08:00 1099 (we will run with NOAA for the time being) has grown to 1054 pixels which is just 73 pixels on the old scale. The darkness ratio measuring 71%. Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 86.1 (86.0) and a low of 86.0 (84.1), overall a low reading. The DSN value for the today is 856 with the previous at 684. Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1. |
|
|
2010/08/13 08:00 1093 (image scaled) has reduced to 1586 pixels (2515) and in the process spawning some speck outliers. The darkness ratio dropping to 56% (57%). There is only one counter today. The DSN measure over the past few days showing the real trend in opposition to the speck counters. UPDATE: NOAA calling 1099, it will be interesting to see if SIDC splits this region. If the region is split, 1099 measures 199 pixels and currently is not a counter. |
|
|
2010/08/13 08:00 1098 has fallen below the 333 pixel threshold and will not be counted today. The region showing a big drop and now measures 169 pixels (552) with a darkness ratio falling of dramatically to 60% (74%). Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 86.0 (88.1) and a low of 84.1 (86.4), overall a low reading. The DSN value for the today is 684 with the previous at 1314. Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1. |
|
|
2010/08/12 08:00 1093 now measuring 2515 pixels (2892) the darkness ratio dropping to 57% (60%). The single spot moving towards separation. 1095 has now disappeared, 1097 measures 23 pixels(102), 1096(CL14) not growing as expected and measures 79 pixels (225). Yesterday there w as 5 regions counted by NOAA and most likely SIDC. Only 2 regions were available to the Layman's Count which is how Rudolf Wolf would have performed his count. |
|
|
2010/08/12 08:00 1098 now measures 552 pixels (653) with a darkness ratio of 74% (73%). Future growth might be unlikely. At present every area is in shrinkage mode while we await the return of 1089 in the south. Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 88.1 (86.8) and a low of 86.4 (85.8), overall a low reading. The DSN value for the today is 1314 with the previous at 1685. Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1. |
|
|
2010/08/11 16:30 SDO not updating 00:00 - 16:30 1093 now measuring 2892 pixels (3301) the darkness ratio dropping to 60% (68%). Lots of specks right now but only 2 spots counting, a great example of how specks skew the record in times like these. 1095 is just with us and measures 66 pixels, 1097 is stagnant and measures 102 pixels, 1096(CL14) not growing as expected and measures 225 pixels. The current activity is up, but very different to what we saw in the first 3 months of 2010. Stereo Behind is showing some action coming in the south which is likely to be 1089 returning. 1097 does not look to be a return of 1091. |
|
|
2010/08/11 16:30 New area 1098 has appeared and measures 653 pixels with a darkness ratio of 73%. The magnetic area is new and not overly large at this stage. Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 86.8 (87.1) and a low of 85.8 (85.6), overall a low reading. The DSN value for the today is 1685 with the previous at 2267. Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1. |
|
|
2010/08/10 08:00 1093 now measuring 3301 pixels (3401) the darkness ratio dropping to 68% (74%). The twin umbral centres clearly visible. The trend will be on the downslope most likely for this region from now on. It will be interesting to see if the EUV values follow the F10.7 flux trend this week. |
|
|
2010/08/10 08:00 1096 has made the grade and measures 1159 pixels (379) with a darkness ratio of 69%. The magnetic structure is growing and could provide more area tomorrow. There is a new area rotating onto the northern face that currently measures 59 pixels. This could be the return of 1091, Carrington longitudes released tomorrow. |
|
|
2010/08/10 08:00 1095 currently measures 249 pixels (281) and is a non counter at this stage. Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 87.1 (84.9) and a low of 85.6 (83.8), on the up again. The DSN value for the today is 2267 with the previous at 2506. Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1. |
|
|
2010/08/09 08:00 1092 now measuring 987 pixels (2053) the darkness ratio dropping to 68% (75%). The current activity is not strong as evident from the F10.7 Flux levels (the 93.1 anomaly from the 7th needs to be ignored). Two simple spots indispersed with nominal speck groups has been the pattern of the week. Activity has certainly increased but the questionable polarity of the northern groups may not be sending the necessary reversing flux towards the poles?
|
|
|
2010/08/09 08:00 1093 growing slowly now and measures 3401 pixels (3329) with a darkness ratio rising to 74% (72%). Remember the SDO darkness ratio is at least 5% short on the SOHO scale, thus making this a strongly magnetic region showing no signs of disappearing around 2015. The darker umbral center region splitting in two, perhaps like cell division compared with yesterday. The extra resolution showing the detail as not seen from SOHO. |
|
|
2010/08/09 08:00 1096 called by NOAA is another speck group this week that doesn't look strong. It currently measures 379 pixels and is subject to the 24 hour rule. 1095 in the south has dropped off again and measures 281 pixels (306). The darkness ratio rising slightly to 72% (70%). The magnetic structure still looking weak. Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 84.9 (93.1) and a low of 83.8 (83.0), light years from yesterdays high. The DSN value for the today is 2506 with the previous at 2868. Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1. |
|
|
2010/08/08 08:00 1092 reducing in size which is expected this close to the limb and now measuring 2053 pixels (2834) the darkness ratio staying strong at 75% (74%).The vast difference between the SOHO and SDO images makes it impossible to calibrate the darkness records accurately. The SDO records are more accurate I believe and need to be utilized but they are tending to be lower in the high range and higher in the low range compared with SOHO. This will balance out with the DSN values but not so for the SC24 darkness graph. The darkness graph will continue to use the SOHO images as long as available.
|
|
|
2010/08/08 08:00 1093 continues to grow and measures 3329 pixels (2647) with a darkness ratio also rising to 72% (68%). The northern hemisphere spots still appearing to be reversed polarity. Not a lot of discussion around on this. |
|
|
2010/08/08 08:00 1095 in the south has dropped off and may not pass the 24 hour rule. The current reading is at 306 pixels (363). The darkness ratio falling to 70% (79%). The magnetic structure still looking weak. Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 93.1 (86.9) and a low of 83.0 (83.2), the high reading possibly influenced by recent flare activity? The DSN value for the today is 2868 with the previous at 2924. Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1. |
|
|
2010/08/07 08:00 1092 falling off the perch and now reading 2834 pixels (4185) the darkness ratio falling back to 74% (75%). 1094 which is almost gone is measuring 81 pixels and wont be counted. Stereo Behind is showing one small area in the north approaching, the future outlook at this point not looking strong. |
|
|
2010/08/07 08:00 1093 has grown very slightly and measures 2647 pixels (2467) with a darkness ratio rising to 68% (64%). This week will show how speck activity severely skews the record, most would agree we should be past weak speck activity and ramping up strongly, if this were a normal cycle. On the Earth side the building La Nina continues to create interest, the low solar UV output perhaps driving it down further?. |
|
|
2010/08/07 08:00 1095 in the south has risen and at this stage is just making the grade at 363 pixels (202), the 24 hour rule now in play. The darkness ratio rising to 79% (71%). The magnetic structure as far as extra growth is concerned is looking weak right now. Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 86.9 (87.7) and a low of 83.2(83.9), starting to decline. The DSN value for the today is 2924 with the previous at 3445. Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1. |
|
|
2010/08/06 08:00 With SOHO down the time has come to move the Layman's Count to the new SDO Continuum images. The SDO images offer far more detail and accuracy along with several updates per hour. The calibration process has been completed and I invite comments and suggestions. 1092 has dropped back to 4185 pixels (4787) on the new scale which has a conversion factor of 6.91% which scales to 290 pixels on the old measure (331) and the darkness ratio falling back to 75% (78%). The magnetogram is suggesting all 3 northern regions are reversed polarity! |
|
|
2010/08/06 08:00 1093(CL348) has grown substantially and measures 2467 pixels (1406) on the new scale with a darkness ratio of 64% (56%). The new threshold for counting spots is 333 pixels which calibrates to the old 23 pixel value.1093 in a different position to 1087. The green channel measurement moves from 0-70 to 0-150. The darkness ratio is measured on the 0-132 range. The Layman's count will use the 4096 x 4096 images which are about 5Mb in size. |
|
|
2010/08/06 08:00 1094 now dropping to 185 pixels (547) and not making the grade. The darkness ratio at 71% (70%). New area 1095 in the south measures 202 pixels. Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 87.7 (83.9) and a low of 83.9 (83.2), a big jump. The DSN value for the today is 3445 with the previous at 3389. Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1. |
|
|
2010/08/05 08:00 With SOHO down the time has come to move the Layman's Count to the new SDO Continuum images. The SDO images offer far more detail and accuracy along with several updates per hour. The calibration process has been completed and I invite comments and suggestions. 1092 measures 4787 pixels on the new scale which has a conversion factor of 6.91% which scales to 331 pixels on the old measure (378) and the darkness ratio falling to 78% (83%). The magnetogram is suggesting this region is reversed polarity! |
|
|
2010/08/05 08:00 1093 measures 1406 pixels (30) on the new scale with a darkness ratio of 56%. The new threshold for counting spots is 333 pixels which calibrates to the old 23 pixel value. NOAA today counting a 4th region which is minor speck activity. The green channel measurement moves from 0-70 to 0-150. The darkness ratio is measured on the 0-132 range. The Layman's count will use the 4096 x 4096 images which are about 5Mb in size. |
|
|
2010/08/05 08:00 A new region has appeared in the north that will be short lived as it approaches the west limb. The region measures 547 pixels and a darkness ratio of 70%. August is starting with renewed growth but listening to the media and others one would think all hell is breaking loose. Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 83.9 (83.9) and a low of 83.2 (82.6), the flux values representing reality. The DSN value for the today is 3389 with the previous at 3278.4. Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1. |
|
|
2010/08/04 01:52 1092 decreasing slightly to 378 pixels (386) and the darkness ratio also dropping back to 83% (85%). 1092 showing signs of passing its peak. Melbourne tonight showing a red sky as a result of the recent coronal mass ejection, which has been hyped in the media worldwide. Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 83.9 (82.0) and a low of 82.6 (81.5). The DSN value for the today is 3278.4 with the previous at 3281. Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1. |
|
|
2010/08/04 01:52 A new area which is possibly a return of 1087 has rotated onto the face. At present it measures 30 pixels. There is also another new area in the south just below which is not showing spot activity as yet.The darkness ratio graph has been updated for July showing the magnetic trend for SC24. |
|
|
2010/08/03 09:09 1092 still growing slowly now at 386 pixels (363) and the darkness ratio rising slightly to a very strong 85% (84%). . This group showing more magnetic strength than 1084 which failed to be recurring. There are two groups coming onto the face showing possible promise. Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 82.6 (83.0) and a low of 81.5 (81.5), not exactly high . The DSN value for the today is 3281 with the previous at 3049.2. Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1. |
|
|
2010/08/02 03:14 1092 (CL80) rising slowly to 363 pixels (346) and the darkness ratio remaining at a strong 84% (84%). There is no shortage of magnetic strength. The Layman's Count for July comes in at 12.9 showing a fair deviation from SIDC this month(16.1) because of the abundance of short lived specks. SC24 continuing to undercut SC5 Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 83.0 (83.7) and a low of 81.6 (81.5) . The DSN value for the today is 3049.2 with the previous at 2906.4. Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1. |
|
|
2010/08/01 01:41 1092 (cyclops2) has risen substantially to 346 pixels (274) and the darkness ratio at a strong 84% (81%). There is no shortage of magnetic strength. Some controversy whether the specks are part of the group along with the magnetic signature that resembles 1084 with a possible polarity reversal....unusual times. July won't be high with an update soon. Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 83.7 (85.9) and a low of 81.5 (85.1) a huge drop considering. The DSN value for the today is 2906.4 with the previous at 2221.4. Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1. |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
2010/07/31 01:41 1092 is growing and now measures 274 pixels (187) and the darkness ratio dropping to a respectable 81% (87%). 1089 has faded to 2 (13). Month end is almost here with July showing a small revival . Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 85.9 (87.2) and a low of 85.1 (86.4) The DSN value for the today is 2221.4 with the previous at 1639.9. Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1. |
|
|
2010/07/30 03:52 1092 is now showing it's magnetic strength, the pixel reading is 187 (94) and the darkness ratio at 87% (74%). This is a new SC24 record, up on 82%, L&P hopefully will be viewing. 1089 has shrunk again to 13 pixels (99). The EUV values updated today that show a strong variance with the F10.7 values. Overall this month will show an increase, but not all that strong. Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 87.2 (88.0) and a low of 86.4 (86.2) The DSN value for the today is 1639.9 with the previous at 1248. Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1. |
|
|
2010/07/28 23:20 1092 is a simple spot but appearing quite dark, the pixel reading is 94 (58) and the darkness ratio at 74% (78%). Will the darkness ratio hold up on rotation? 1089 has shown some regrowth and now measures 99 pixels (52) with a darkness ratio of 54% (58%). Today's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 88.0 (85.2) and a low of 86.2 (84.1) The measurements suggesting a willingness for an overall increase but as yet not quite pulling it off. Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1. |
|
|
2010/07/28 09:30 The new region looking dark at first light, the pixel reading is 58 and a darkness ratio of 78%. 1089 has strengthened slightly and now measures 61 pixels (52) with a rising darkness ratio of 66% (58%). There is also a single speck region in the south. The DSN value for today is 856 (752.6). Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1. The solar wind increasing again and reaching higher speed. |
|
|
2010/07/28 01:30 SOHO is back, the downtime most likely a result of regular maintenance. 1089 measures 52 pixels (175 two days ago) with a darkness ratio of 58% (63% two days ago). 1090/1 will not be counted. There is a substantial area just rotating onto the face in the north. Yesterday's adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 85.2 (87.2) and a low of 84.1 (86.8). The DSN value for the 26th is 1142.5. Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1. The solar wind moving to good speed. |
|
|
2010/07/27 11:00 (SDO) SOHO is still not operating correctly, the last image is 36 hours old. The SDO image which is not measurable showing a steady decline of 1089. NOAA finding a speck somewhere (1091) that has since disappeared. From today I will be showing the previous reading in brackets just after the latest reading for ease of use. Thanks Mike for the suggestion.A new article on the expected northern hemisphere cooling here. The adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 87.2 (88.2) and a low of 86.8 (87.7) for yesterday. Today's DSN value is still to be measured (no image at present). Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1. The solar wind moving to good speed. |
|
|
2010/07/26 12:00 SOHO is down again but looking at the SDO images 1089 appears to be shrinking dramatically. Area 1090 looks to have disappeared. Old area 1084 remaining a plage with still unknown polarity. A new article on the expected northern hemisphere cooling here. The adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 88.2 and a low of 87.7 for yesterday, practically no change. Today's DSN value is still to be measured (no image at present). Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1. The DSN value I think showing the clear difference in activity. |
|
|
2010/07/25 09:30 1089 reducing further to 216 pixels but as a result the darkness ratio building to 64% which is still lower than the 70% reading recorded earlier today. 1090 called by NOAA in the north which currently measures 8 pixels. The other speck regions have been ignored but may appear later in the SIDC count. Old region 1084 with unknown polarity appearing as a plage in the south? The adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 87.9 and a low of 87.7 for yesterday, the flux value further coming off its high. Today's DSN value is 1412.8 . Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1. The DSN value I think showing the clear difference in activity. |
|
|
2010/07/24 11:27 Not a lot of images again today, 1089 is dropping back slightly with a pixel reading of 234. The darkness ratio has strengthened a little, now up to 62%. There are 4 new areas with a single speck that have the potential for the NOAA count to get close to 100, we will see. The adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 89.2 and a low of 88.5 for yesterday, the flux value coming off its high. Today's DSN value is 1453.8, yesterdays value may need to be a calculated average. Updated DSN graphs HERE which now go back to March 1. The DSN value I think showing the clear difference in activity. |
|
|
2010/07/23 00:04 Not a lot of images today but 1089 looks to be stagnating. The pixel count is 264 and the darkness ratio dropping to 57%. This group may have run its race with the darkness ratio perhaps showing an overall weakness in the pipeline? The return of 1084 is not looking very likely which as a single spot had a lot more punch than the current group. The adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 91.5 and a low of 90.5 for yesterday, a drop from the previous, the extended flux values more likely a product of 3 large plage areas. Yesterday's DSN value is 1379.4 . Updated DSN graphs HERE which gives a good perspective on reality. |
|
|
2010/07/22 01:29 1089 growing slowly now to 262 pixels. The darkness ratio rising to 60% which is still not strong. The southern hemisphere lately appearing to regain some strength. Old area 1084 according to Stereo B may have disappeared? The adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 92.4 and a low of 92.0 for yesterday, the flux levels getting close to the highs recorded in this years first quarter.. Yesterday's DSN value is 1259.7 . Updated DSN graphs HERE. |
|
|
2010/07/21 10:35 New area 1089 growing substantially to 221 pixels. The darkness ratio measures a weak 57% at this early stage. The magnetic structure suggesting this group might be around for awhile although the darkness ratio not showing a lot of strength so far. The adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 90.2 and a low of 86.7 for yesterday, a big jump on the previous reading. Yesterday's DSN value is 337.5 . Updated DSN graphs HERE. |
|
|
2010/07/20 00:22 New area 1089 (CL203) not allowing yesterday to be counted as spotless. Old area 1084 (CL145) if still going should be behind this region. 1089 measuring 36 pixels. 1087 in the north has a speck or two and still contributing to yesterday's NOAA count. The adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 83.9 and a low of 82.1 for yesterday, a reasonable rise. Yesterday's DSN value is 7 . Updated DSN graphs HERE. |
|
|
2010/07/19 02:52 Today has begun spotless, but there has been a new speck region in the north that is perhaps spent already. The second region coming onto the face in south as shown on the SDO magnetogram is showing some promise. But still the overall strength feeling weak this month. The adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 79.4 and a low of 79.3 for yesterday, dropping back to low levels. Yesterday's DSN value is 7 . Updated DSN graphs HERE. |
|
|
2010/07/18 01:02 SOHO back with us,1087 decaying rapidly back to 24 pixels, which is just over the threshold.The darkness ratio at 63%. The return of the once reversed polarity region 1084 is imminent. What will "Cyclops" have in store this rotation? Overall activity still considered low. The adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 81.3 and a low of 78.8 for yesterday, back on the upramp again. Yesterday's DSN value is 290.40 . Updated DSN graphs HERE. |
|
|
2010/07/16 04:00 1087 today falling back slightly, some of the associated faint specks fading away. The pixel count has dropped a small amount to 80. The darkness ratio as a result climbing back to 65%. The big mover today is the F10.7 flux dropping nearly 6 points from the previous high. 1084 is gearing up for a return on Stereo B, along with another possible passenger. The adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 79.6 and a low of 74.4 for yesterday, showing a big fall. Today's DSN value is 520 . Updated DSN graphs HERE. |
|
|
2010/07/15 09:59 1087 growing by a few pixels to 88. The darkness ratio dropping to 59%. The magnetic area on the Magnetogram is huge, which is paying dividends to the F10.7 Flux & UV records but a weak showing on the sunspot number. This can be a symptom of returning regions. July so far not looking at all strong, some hope in the south via Stereo B? Today's DSN value is 519.2 which is a gradual decline over the past 5 days. Updated DSN graphs HERE. |
|
|
2010/07/15 00:59 The SOHO website was down yesterday but now up and running. 1087 has reduced further in size and measures 83 pixels. The darkness ratio is at 61%. Although there has been a rise in activity so far this month the level of activity is still way below earlier this year. The DSN graphs showing this clearly. The adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 84.5 and a low of 79.3 for yesterday, showing a rise and fall. Yesterday's DSN value is 613.6. Updated DSN graphs HERE. |
|
|
2010/07/13 03:35 1087 has shrunk in size today and now measures 116 pixels. The group has consolidated with a lot of the smaller specks disappearing. As a result the darkness ratio has risen slightly to 62%. NOAA deciding not to call the speck region in the south which has now almost faded, there is most likely a valid reason for the perceived inconsistency, which to me is not apparent. The adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 82.6 and a low of 82.1 for yesterday, a noticeable drop in one day. Today's DSN value is 719.2. Updated DSN graphs HERE. |
|
|
2010/07/12 17:36 1087 remaining the same and measuring 135 pixels. The darkness ratio has dropped back to 59% which suggests a further weakening. The speck activity in the south shrinking to 3 pixels but still capable of getting a NOAA number at the next update. Today's adjusted F10.7 flux figures starting to head down to the 82 value. Today's DSN value is 799.5. DSN graphs HERE. |
|
|
2010/07/12 00:00 Only one image available from SOHO today at 00:00. The SDO images are suggesting a falling back of activity on both the Continuum and Magnetogram. In particular the magnetic intensity looks to be reducing from the high part of region 1087. The speck region in the south has not yet been called by NOAA and is around 10 pixels with a weak underlying structure. The adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 84.7 and a low of 84.5 for yesterday, a strengthening on the bottom end only. Today's DSN value is not available yet . DSN graphs HERE. |
|
|
2010/07/11 08:00 1087 growing to 130 pixels.The darkness ratio has also grown slowly to 67% which at this stage is a shadow of 1084. The top part of this area looks to be the newer growth area on the magnetogram which right now is not super impressive. Tomorrow could be different. The dark pixel at the top of this group is a broken pixel on SOHO and has not been measured. New SDO images available on the sidebar. The adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 84.7 and a low of 82.3 for yesterday, a good rise that may be sustained for awhile. Today's DSN value is 871 . DSN graphs HERE. |
|
|
2010/07/10 20:48 1087 (CL334) now beginning to show some form arising from the large underlying magnetic structure. The pixel count has risen to 86 and the darkness ratio is measured at 63%. 1087 becomes the 5th recurring region, but does it have the same strength of others before it? New SDO images available on the sidebar. The adjusted F10.7 flux figures have risen again to 84.7. DSN graphs HERE. |
|
|
2010/07/10 08:00 1087 called by NOAA which is a return of the very weak 1082. The plage area is extremely bright and covers the area roughly of Jupiter. The pixel reading is 18 with no darkness recorded. SDO showing some consolidation of the region that may build. Today remains spotless so far. One cant help sit back and question if this is normal? New SDO images available on the sidebar. The adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 82.7 and a low of 78.5 for yesterday, a big rise showing the inconsistency between SSN and F10.7 Flux. Today's DSN value is 18 . DSN graphs HERE. |
|
|
2010/07/09 06:24 There are a couple of speck zones but as yet nothing that can be counted. A large bright plage area which is probably 1082 region (which was little more than speck activity on the frontside) returning. There is potential for more growth but so far not looking strong. If this area does not perform, more questions will be asked. The adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 78.3 and a low of 77.4 for yesterday, another reasonable increase, the Flux activity of late out being out of step with sunspot activity. Today's DSN value is 1 . DSN graphs HERE. |
|
|
2010/07/08 08:00 1084 almost gone. This single spot has been the most memorable for me of SC24, sure there has been others that were 4 times bigger in area but 1084 came on instantly (a return of 1078) and never faulted as it rotated off. It recorded the highest darkness ratio along with L&P's highest ever gauss reading for SC24 (3020), all this for a reverse polarity spot that returned back to correct polarity before leaving...will it return? Spotless tomorrow, but maybe not for long. The adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 76.9 and a low of 75.7 for yesterday, a slight increase. Today's DSN value is 279.3 . DSN graphs HERE. |
|
|
2010/07/07 08:00 1084 now at 85 pixels with the darkness ratio staying at a high of 73%, 1086 has all but disappeared and will not influence the Layman's Count. For the past seven days we have an average sunspot number of 7. The solar wind has been on a reasonable high of late but sinking back to basic lows again. Today I updated the UV graph, which like its twin brother the F10.7 Flux continues to look weak and going against the trend expected during a cycle up ramp. 1084 polarity now non reversed? The adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 75.2 and a low of 74.7 for yesterday, basically no change but still low. Today's DSN value is 620.5 . DSN graphs HERE. |
|
|
2010/07/06 06:24 1084 now at 124 pixels with the darkness ratio staying at a high of 79%, this spot has been something out of the box. 1086 not showing any form and measures 7 pixels. The area in the north on Stereo B still looking like a player. The adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 75.2 and a low of 75.0 for yesterday, and small rise. Today's DSN value is 1009 . DSN graphs HERE. |
|
|
2010/07/05 06:24 1084 slipping back to 153 pixels but remaining at 81% darkness ratio. 1086 has been called by NOAA in the north and measures 18 pixels at this stage. The adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 74.6 and a low of 73.8 for yesterday, which is now showing signs of further decline. Today's DSN value is 1349.1 . DSN graphs HERE. |
|
|
2010/07/04 08:00 1084 reducing slightly and now measuring 173 pixels. The darkness ratio has risen to a quite dark 81%, showing no signs of giving up yet. The Stereo Behind satellite is displaying a bright region on the farside that will be worth following. There is a small speck region in the north measuring 3 pixels, the area at present not showing any potential. The adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 75.0 and a low of 74.8 for yesterday, which is now showing signs of further decline. Today's DSN value is 1404.3 . DSN graphs HERE. |
|
|
2010/07/03 08:00 1084 maintaining a very steady record. This area raising many questions. Mainstream solar physics not saying much as this very dark reversed polarity spot tracks its path. The pixel measurement at 190 and a darkness ratio of 79% showing little loss in form. I hope L&P get a measure on this one as there are no specks to cloud the issue. The adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 75.9 and a low of 75.7 for yesterday, practically no change. Today's DSN value is 1501 . DSN graphs HERE. |
|
|
2010/07/02 08:00 1084 now measuring 196 pixels almost on the meridian. The darkness ratio dropping back to 77%. The outlook for more activity is not looking strong. SC24 needs a boost to exceed SC5. The solar wind has been riding an unfamiliar wave of reasonable speed, perhaps a remnant of the early quite strong activity of 2010? The adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 75.6 and a low of 75.3 for yesterday, practically no change. Today's DSN value is 1509.2 . DSN graphs HERE. |
|
|
2010/07/01 00:00 1084 still growing and now measuring 190 pixels and the darkness ratio at 82% which is a new high for SC24. No lacking of magnetic intensity here. The monthly figures are in: NOAA est at 18, SIDC 13.5 & the Layman's Count at 8.5. If my calculations are right NOAA appearing to reverse form. SC24 now undercutting SC5! The adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 76.3 and a low of 75.3 for yesterday, a very small rise on the previous count. Today's DSN value is 1584 . DSN graphs HERE. |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICIAL LAYMAN'S COUNT JULY:
July has seen a pickup in activity which is shown in all indices. The Speck activity was also high. Only 4 groups were active but were long lived allowing only one spotless day. The darkness ratio reached yet another record high (87%) which I expect to increase as we approach solar maximum. Next month may show another rise which is well within current expectations.
SC24 still undercutting SC5.
Layman's monthly mean at 12.9
SIDC monthly mean at 16.1
NOAA monthly mean at 23.1
SIDC 2010 spotless days - 32
Layman's 2010 spotless days - 63
This month there are 15 days of difference between the Layman's Count and SIDC. The SIDC counting many specks this month making the process difficult.
The Darkness Ratio being recorded for three groups this month.
The solar wind having some good speed due to coronal holes.
Last Years Spotless Records.
SIDC 2009 spotless days - 261
Layman's 2009 spotless days - 314
Layman's spotless days June 2008 - June 2009 - 349
LAYMAN'S SUNSPOT DARKNESS RATIO
This ratio is a little like the Livingston & Penn contrast measurements, the L&P method is to measure the darkest part of the spot and compare it with the photosphere to achieve a contrast figure. The Layman method is to use only sunspots that make the grade and then measure how many green channel pixels are in the 0-34 range and then calculate the proportion of that darker area over the entire pixels in that spot (taken on the day with the highest darkness reading generally near max pixel count). The Layman's method is not hampered by available telescope time, cloud cover and daytime only viewing, but is reliant on consistent SOHO images. The SOHO images will continue to be used for as long as possible with the darkness ratio graph.
Click on the graph for a larger image.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECURRING REGIONS TABLE
| RECURRING REGIONS | TABLE | Sunspot |
Pixel | PPA | DR% | F10.7 |
EUV | Long | Date |
| Northern Hemisphere | Region 1 | 1035 | 732 | 2040 | 73 | 84 | 1.0906 | 248 | 2009/12/17 |
| 1040 | 814 | 3244 | 73 | 90 | 1.1268 | 238 | 2010/01/13 | ||
| 1045 | 892 |
1900 | 68 | na | na | 253 | 2010/02/08 | ||
| Southern Hemisphere | Region 2 | 1039 | 430 | 1283 | 71 | 78 | 1.0230 | 54 | 2009/12/31 |
| 1041 | 223 | 1942 | 67 | 83 | 1.1059 | 54 | 2010/01/24 | ||
| 1050 | 78 | na | 53 | na | na | 55 | 2010/02/24 | ||
| Northern Hemisphere | Region 3 | 1043 | 108 | 69 | 322 | 2010/01/31 | |||
| 1051 | 62 | 52 | 322 | 2010/02/28 | |||||
| 1057 | 660 | 76 | 319 | 2010/03/28 | |||||
| Southern Hemisphere | Region 4 | 1078 | 129 | 66 | 141 | 2010/06/08 | |||
| 1084 | 196 | 82 | 145 | 2010/07/01 | |||||
| Southern Hemisphere | Region 5 | 1082 | 56 | 80 | 305 | 2010/06/20 | |||
| 1087 | 135 | 65 | 335 | 2010/07/12 |
*Measurements taken at the groups highest sunspot pixel count. Adjusted Flux values are the highest value on the day rounded up at .5. PPA values reduced by the area of a co existing spot if necessary. Not applicable (na) = many other areas of activity occurring at the same time making this measurement irrelevant. Long = Carrington Longitude.
COMMENT: Region 1 showing spot maximum 27 days apart, Region 2 with 24 days apart suggesting a dampening of strength. F10.7 Flux showing an increase so far in the 2nd generation occurrence even though 1041 went against the sunspot area trend. The PPA value coinciding with the Flux value (small sample).
The addition of 1045 showing some different trends, F10.7 flux strong without a high PPA, and the darkness ratio substantially lower. The low PPA reading suggesting a reformation of the region, the EUV figures will be interesting in a few weeks. The 27 day period in Region 1 staying about right. Speculation that the start of the Dalton had a region 1 type occurrence during its false start?
PPA or Potential Plage Area method described here-
New Region 3 Found.
With the help of SDJ, a contributor from a thread at SC24.com, a third recurring region has been found. This one had previously slid through the cracks, but now we have a tool that picks up everything. Many thanks to SDJ for supplying the graph, the data was painstakingly collected from the University of Debrecen in Hungary who also do a great job .
Guide to performing your own pixel count:
Download freeware graphics program GIMP http://www.gimp.org/downloads/
Save SOHO MDI Continuum 1024 x 1024 image from http://sohodata.nascom.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/data_query
The GIMP tool certainly is quick, usually under a minute to do a total pixel count. Once the image is loaded use the crop tool to select area to count, double click on that area and then select histogram tool from the menu: colors/info/histogram. Next on the histogram window select the green channel and change the parameters to 0 and 70. The histogram now displays the total Layman's count.
For individual checking of pixel RGB levels double click on the foreground color selector (under all the icons in the toolbox). A new window allows you to select eye dropper icon, then select pixel (zoom to 1600x). Its cumbersome but I find I dont have to use it often.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert is working on an interesting project where he overlays two images taken from the EIT satellite, as can be seen apart from the visually stunning image there is quite a lot of detail that might not be apparent when looking at the images on their own. Pictured above is a timeline of SC23 moving through to SC24.
The images are regularly updated and can be found here: www.leif.org/bateman
This graph prepared by Robert shows how the Layman's count (blue) compares with the Wolf count and today's methods.
Many thanks go to Carl's brother Dave for providing the Domain, Server and Software.
Comments
scaling
Geoff Sharp,
I see a problem with leif, he has made a very large error by an assumption that one can scale UP old data to fit into new data, that is not correct, you can ONLY scale DOWN! I am not so suprized actually. Many people in science forget simple principles, to make data fit preconcieved notions. He is asuming that THERE WERE more specks and pores to be found,
We Do Not Know This! assume is very bad indeed!
we can not add 122% to old data to get waldmeir numbers, or 140% to get wolfer numbers, or 170% to wolf counts to get waldmere numbers! this is totaly inaproprate .
you might be able to aproximate wolfer by .78 to waldmeier then .6 to wolfer to get aproximate wolf's but NOT THE OTHER WAY!
Looks like .78x.60 get us to .468 witch is dead on for one number stated.
I am just saying
SSNs the last few days
The Wolf Numbers for the past three days have been (wolfer numbers in parens):
8/16 50 (30)
8/17 21 (13)
8/18 22 (13)
Catania
Yes, the Catania dataset continues to be controversial. Anybody who uses their data should not be taken seriously.
Some interesting flashbacks below.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/31/sun-has-first-spotless-calendar-mo...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/13/this-is-what-passes-for-a-sunspot-...
I notice in the the comments you refer to some of your earlier work http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Spring%202008%20SP23A-07.pdf that states a jump in the sunspot numbers when moving from Wolf to Wolfer. Have you changed your mind on this since?
Glad you are coming around to Wolf sunspot threshold size. The "pocket telescope" could provide the key to his threshold size, I am working on just what size spot he could have seen.
Pores
I'm reading through Wolf's description of his sunspot numbers for sunspot minimum year 1856 [the yearly mean was 4.3; the numbers he reports are virtually the same as given in the official list maintained by SIDC]. At the time Schwabe was still observing and the Wolf numbers for 1856 are a mixture of Wolf and Schwabe observations, and Wolf was trying to follow Schwabe's method [to be able to use Scwabe's earlier data back to 1826]. Wolf remarks upon Schwabe's method: "He used a 2.5-foot telescope with a magnification of 40; larger telescopes and higher magnification showed him naturally small dots and gray pores, which he would not see in the smaller scope and consequently also not took into account in the data". This is the clearest statement of the [common with Scwabe]] threshold established already back in 1856: do not count pores and small dots [neither of which show penumbrae].
Wolf has this to say about SC5 [rough translation from the German]: "Already in 1801 and 1802, Arago, Herschel, Fritsch, and Flaubergues saw rich groups, and in 1803 and 1804 this richness was extraordinary. Flaubergues could not recall [in 1805] to have seen the sun without spots in 1802 and 1803, but well that he had seen many and large spots. Fritsch [1806] saw in those same years often more than 50 umbrae of all sizes, small and large, at the same time. Eimbcke [1806] said that he had never seen so persistent and frequent spots as in 1803. Huth said [1807] that he also had never seen so many or so large spots as in February and March, 1804, etc. Even for 1805 Huth, Bode, Flaugergues, etc [1808] report large spots. Then for 1807 Bode and Flaubergues [1813, 1810] report many spotless days, and from June 1808 through Nov. 1811 Fritsch, Bode, Gruithuisen and Ende [1813, 1814] agree that the sun had only very rarely and then only very small spots. The minimum in 1810.5 thus seems justified."
Doesn't sound like Grand Minimum to me, nor to Wolf.
Here is what Wolf would have
Here is what Wolf would have counted the past 2.5 years [white curve] using his large telescope [which is - after all - the standard everybody aligns with]:
:
Wolf's large telescope still exists and is being used every day by Waldmeier's old assistant Hans Uwe Keller [with Thomas Friedli] to keep the Wolf series alive. I am trying to reach him, but so far without luck. Here is more on them: http://www.rwg.ch/
What Source? There is a problem with your data Dr. Svalgaard
Show us how you calculated your perceived Wolf values over SC24.
Calculation of Wolf numbers
You say "There is a problem ...". Based on what? You are prone to make such meaningless statements without basis. Here is how you get the Wolf number:
Go to http://web.ct.astro.it/sun/archivio/Archivio.htm pick a year and select a drawing for any day. E.g. ftp://ftp.ct.astro.it/sundraw/OAC_D_20100810_053000.jpg for August 10th, 2010. There are 5 groups:
1: 1 21, meaning 1 spot, 21 pores [that is what the little 's' and 'p' mean
2: 1 0, meaning 1 spot, 0 pores
3: 2 0, 2 spots, 0 pores
4: 0 7, meaning 0 spots and 7 pores. This group Wolf would not have counted
5: 1 0, 1 spot, no pores
Since Wolf did not count pores, he would not have included group #4.
To calculate the Wolf number, take the number of groups with spots [4], add up the number of spots [sum = 5], ignore the pores, and get Rw = 10*4+5 = 45. To get the Wolfer number, add in the pores to get Rf = 83. Multiply by 0.6, for Rf* = 49.8.
Since the Catania telescope is similar to Wolf's original telescope [no coincidence as people strive for such similarity], the above calculation should be close to what Wolf would have come up with. There is one fly in the ointment: We don't know Wolf's Snellen number [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snellen_chart ], but shall assume it is reasonable [from Wolf's excellent observations of other objects].
Wolf's pocket telescope.
"Since the Catania telescope is similar to Wolf's original telescope"
So many variables that could be in play. The whole sunspot counting process seems to be hidden to some extent. It would be great to have SIDC or NOAA provide a page explaining the exact process along with the equipment specifications. The magnification maybe the same at 64 but there is much more to image clarity than magnification.
After that we need to attempt to arrive at the optical quality of Wolf's pocket telescope, which is I think the origin of the sunspot threshold size.
Dr. Svalgaard, loss of credibility
This is total waffle.
You have a paper stating that today's SIDC values are at least 22% above Wolfer's count. Now you produce a graph showing your reconstructed Wolf count higher the the current SIDC count?
Your credibility is at stake here.
of course Wolf is higher,
of course Wolf is higher, SIDC multiplies by 0.6.
You again use silly words, like 'waffle'. Do proper analysis, examine the drawings, learn how it is done.
------------------------------------
It is really simple. forget about the various adjustments and fudge factors all stemming from attempts to compensate for how people count pores and spots. Waldmeier's 22% is probably because he weighted spots according to size [bigger spots count for more]. Let's just go back to basics:
1) using a similar telescope, people with similar experience and Snellen factor will see the same number of spots and pores. Pores are spots without penumbra, so it is easy for everybody to agree how to distinguish.
2) counting only groups on the Catania drawings [since 2001] that have a spot will therefore lead to the same count as Wolf, who did the same.
3) using Wolf's formula Rw = 10 * groups + spots will therefore give the same number as if Wolf were observing today.
4) how to translate that into the historical record ~1875 - present with all the debatable adjustments is another matter, but does not change the pure Wolf numbers we can derive today by using Wolf's very method.
5) A separate question is if we really want Wolf numbers, or Wolfer numbers. I believe the latter, but can construct real Wolf numbers, nevertheless.
------
I have evaluated thousands of these drawings. There is no doubt that the original-style wolf numbers can be derived unambiguously from them. Not that we would ever want the original-style wolf numbers, they are not a good representation of true solar activity. We want the wolfer-style numbers, where everything is counted. Deliberately throwing away a significant part of what makes solar activity is bad science.
Wolfer is wrong now?
So now your suggesting Wolfer after 17 years of calibrating his count with Wolf's arrived at the wrong correction factor of .6
You are not being consistent.
Also the SIDC count is not reduced by multiplying by .6, a good example is their record of sunspot 1084. This a was simple single spot that appeared on its own for several days. During these days the NOAA count was 11 while the SIDC counted 8. This, one would assume is to keep in line with Waldmeier's inflated count.
You are running out of ideas, the Layman's Count is running about 20% less than the SIDC count which is consistent with your own studies. Your attempts to undermine the LSC undermine your own credibility.
You are confusing Wolf and
You are confusing Wolf and Wolfer. What you are saying is that you trying to duplicate Wolfer's count and not Wolf's count. That is OK, as long as that is what you are trying to do, because Wolfer's is the correct way of doing it. But then you better not in your mast-head claim that you are trying to restore Wolf's standard.
In case of 11084, Wolf would have registered that as 11 before 1861 and as 16 thereafter. That is the Wolf standard. For those days, my Wolf numbers were:
7-1 11; 7-2 11; 7-3 11; 7-5 23; 7-6 23; 7-7 11; 7-8 11; 7-9 0; 7-10 11; 7-12 27; etc
Those are what Wolf would have reported, as you can see for yourself on the Catania drawings for July: ftp://ftp.ct.astro.it/sundraw/ Before ~1877 [i.e. including SC5], the official sunspot numbers are as Wolf reported them, not 'contaminated' by the 0.6 factor, so it is a bit strange that you are ignoring that and insist on reconstructing Wolfer numbers, but, people sometimes do strange things...
Now, I do not anticipate that you'll become reasonable on this [too much is at stake]. You are too emotional on this, as shown by your choice of words. Luckily I have a thick skin so they don't work on me. Now, I applaud your attempt to reconstruct the Wolfer number, you just have to do it right.
BTW, SIDC is undercounting by 12%. [starting by 1st August 2001].
On 11084, July 3, SIDC had reports from 60+ observers. Some of them could [and apparently did] have reported some pores next to 11084. This happens [and apparently did].
Wolf got it right..
Perhaps I am not the one getting confused. Wolfer discounted his method to align with the earlier Wolf values.
Some excerpts from your paper at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1003/1003.4666v1.pdf
Abstract. We review the evidence for the argument that Rudolf Wolf 's cal-
ibration of the Sunspot Number is likely to be correct and that Max Waldmeier
introduced an upwards jump in the sunspot number in 1945. The combined
eff ect of these adjustments suggests that there has been no secular change in the
sunspot number since coming out of the Maunder Minimum 1715.
Wolf did not count pores and the smallest spots. His assistant (and suc-
cessor) Alfred Wolfer disagreed and argued that all visible pores and spots, no
matter how small, should be counted, and of course won the argument by stay-
ng longer on the right side of the grass. He used the correction factor, kW =
0.6, to bring his counts into conformance with Wolf 's.
Also from solarcycle24.com a few days ago;
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.
At the end of the above referenced paper you show a reconstruction of the sunspot numbers with the pre 1945 values adjusted up. Both the Wolf & Wolfer values have been adjusted up by around 20%.
Re 1084: Once again you are guessing as you dont know what size spot Wolf would have counted. Its not just about isolating pores. For Wolfer to scale against Wolf the .6 factor has to include small spots as well, using pores alone will not do it. This single spot went from about 27th June to the 8th of July. The entire SIDC record for this spot looks to be greater than 7. I checked several days of that period using the 4096 x 4096 SDO images and saw nothing greater than the background granulation ( there was 1 tiny speck in the north away from 1084 on the 4th, the SIDC count that day was 9) . NOAA looks to have counted 11 for every one of those days.
Yesterday the 16th was a good example of how the different institutions and specks play out, even allowing for time difference. Catania counted 4 groups with a raw count of 62 which would come back to 37 once adjusted (going on your leave out only the pores theory this would end up with 50, not even close to .6). Interestingly they ignored 1093 which was still visible. NOAA measured just 3 groups and came in with 39 unadjusted, NOAA not counting the northern specks on the meridian. The LSC will come in around 9, Wolf considering the small size may not have counted anything but perhaps would have counted the northern group 1098 at 13 or less.
Your opening statement a few days ago along with your Wolf graph proving to be incorrect;
"We changed the way sunspots were counted way back in 1882. 17 years of counting both ways have shown that there is a simple proportionality between the old count and the new count, namely old = 0.6 * new. The discussion at landscheidt is incorrect and invalid."
Just isolating pores from the count is NOT the Wolf method.
This is the reason why so many people appreciate the LSC, an easy to follow threshold that works close to how Wolf would have counted.
You have to make a difference
You have to make a difference between what Wolf would have counted and what the modern counters with their various adjustments and algorithms count. I have processed all the thousands of Catania drawings and find that the ratio between the Wolf count [simply omitting pores] and the Wolfer count is 0.602. This is strong evidence that you get the Wolf count by just omitting pores.
What SIDC, NOAA etc count is not relevant in the discussion of what Wolf would have counted. Of course, if you are trying to reconstruct the Wolfer count, as you are doing [I note that you did not disagree with that], then it doesn't matter what Wolf would have counted.
The fact that by just omitting pores I recover the same factor [0.6] as Wolfer did back in the 1890s is good evidence that to get the raw Wolf Number one simply omits pores.
This might be where you are going wrong.
I have said all along that the 0.6 factor does not work when the speck ratio increases. The 0.6 factor might work during times of normal solar activity, but its not working now. Do the maths over the last 3 months and you will find the same.
I just checked 20 Catania records from the last 3 months (about 4 days apart), with nearly every record showing the 0.6 factor did not get close. You can't simply adopt the 0.6 factor during times like these, I can't see how your "no pores only Wolf data" can be higher than SIDC. I would like to see your study on SC24 only.
For 2008-Dec thru 2010-Aug
For 2008-Dec thru 2010-Aug the average Wolf number from Catania was Rw=8.10 and the average Wolfer number was Rf=14.23, ratio r = Rw/Rf = 0.57. Another way to calculate the ratio, is to calculate the ratio for each month and then average all the months. This way one gets r = 0.60. If one only uses 2010 when SC24 is well underway, one gets r = 0.62 and r = 0.60, respectively. Looks pretty good to me.
Here are the numbers for each month:
0.68
0.68
0.69
0.50
0.61
0.46
0.53
0.68
The first column [of SSNs] is the Wolfer count for Catania, the second column is the Wolf count, and the last is the ratio, which may show on a separate line [formatting not too good...]
Raw Wolf numbers cannot be directly compared to SIDC because they are apples [Wolf] and oranges [Wolfer, SIDC].
You can see the raw counts here: http://www.leif.org/research/Catania%20Sunspots.htm
I would like to see your 20 spot-checks to the same level of detail, that is: for each day the Wolfer group count, the Wolf group count, the number of spots and the number of pores.
Catania Rw is wrong?
There are a couple of issues arising. I believe the Catania Rw value you are using is incorrect. Saying that, the 2009 avg Kw value is at 0.41 with 2008 looking similar, but your Rw values during the first 3 months of 2010 are too high. For your paper to be correct the Rw values have to be lower than the SIDC values, otherwise you cannot rescale the pre 1945 values. What your Rw value is suggesting is that Wolfer's .6 K factor doesnt work during times of "normal" activity.
You mention that Wolf did not count pores and small spots, yet there is no provision for a reduction in the spot column by only reducing the value by the pore count. Some of those spots should not be counted. Also what does Catania consider a spot and pore, on some checking it seems micro dots are considered spots, this is skewing your Rw value.
2 examples, 27 & 28 th May 2010. 27th is raw 23, Rw 23, 28th raw 22 Rw 22. Look at the SOHO Continuum images available for those days.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov//data/REPROCESSING/Completed/2010/mdiigr/...
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov//data/REPROCESSING/Completed/2010/mdiigr/...
I dont think Wolf would have counted these specks/spots and would they be seen through his pocket telescope?
This shows the Catania record is in doubt, I would not be relying on it.
Have you done a similar Catania Rw analysis over the whole of SC22?
You 'believe' this or that. I
You 'believe' this or that. I show with stark numbers what reality is. My paper has nothing to do with any of this, but is solely concerned with the various adjustments done or needed. Here I show what Wolf would have reported. I show that Wolfer's 0.6 worked back then and works perfectly now. My reference to 'pores and small spots' was for the general public that may not know what a pore is. The established [since 1801] distinction is that if there is a penumbra, it is a spot, otherwise it is a pore. Experienced observers will almost always agree on whether the 'spot' is a spot with penumbra or a pore without. Wolf certainly would, as he became very experienced. Should there be few random disagreements that is just the normal noise.
"some checking it seems micro dots are considered spots" show a link or what checking you did. We are still waiting for the table with the 20 values you boasted of earlier.
Both Wolf's telescope and Catania's have higher resolution [1" or better with good seeing]. MDI's is inferior having a pixel size of 2".
Compare
with
And you can see how MDI does not capture the true nature of the active region. Simply because its resolution is not good enough.
"Have you done a similar Catania Rw analysis over the whole of SC22?"
No, as they were not making drawings then [or at least don't show them], but Wolfer did one for 17 years back then, and found the same ratio 0.6 as I find for recent values [doesn't change from 2001 to the present], so there you have it. In 1894 Wolfer examined the counts from Catania and found a factor of 0.6. This is important because is goes to how similar the seeing was.
I have given you the numbers for every day with data for SC24 as you asked for ['only' remember?]. Go through that data and convince yourself of its veracity.
It seems that you are trying to duplicate Wolfer's numbers, and not Wolf's. You have not denied that yet, so one might take that as a confirmation.
chinks in the armour...
I "believe" you are on shaky ground. If you do not have a way of showing how your constructed Catania Rw is validated against a "normal" cycle, we have no way of knowing its accuracy. Wolfer would have been aware of Wolf's threshold being his assistant for so many years and used this threshold in his calculations to arrive at 0.6. Also keep in mind his 17 years of analysis did not occur during a grand minimum.
If your not happy with the MDI resolution lets step it up to the SDO 4096 x 4096.
The Layman's SDO threshold is 333 pixels measured between 0-150 in the green channel. Its a reliable method of determining extremely small specks that are just darker than the surrounding photosphere. In this instance the reading is zero.
I suggest to you that the Catania results are not consistent or reliable, and it seems you have no way of justifying its accuracy during past cycles.
It also stands to reason that Wolf must have set his threshold using his pocket telescope, do you think he would have counted 12 for this area?
If I was trying to emulate Wolfer I would not have the 333 pixel threshold.
On your image there are in
On your image there are in fact three pores visible in addition to the two spots. These were not picked up by Catania [too weak] and would not have been counted by Wolf either. Wolf multiplied all his counts with the pocket telescope by 1.5 to bring them onto the 1849-1861 scale which is the true Wolf scale. He very likely would not have seen the spots in question with his pocket telescope, but that is not the issue because the Wolf scale is based on his large scope.
Your notion of a grand minimum is just opinion and cannot be used to fudge the data with.
Wolfer did not use any threshold at all, just took Wolf's numbers for the comparison and used his own numbers which included the smallest pores and specks. And you are emulating Wolfer, because you use the SIDC numbers which are supposed to be on the Wolfer scale [even if not quite]. So, if there were just one large spot [as we saw recently] Wolf would have reported Rw = 11 and for that number there is no issue of pores or small spots. There was only one large spot. Yet LSC for that spots was 7, not exactly what Wolf would have reported.
Where is the table of 20 comparison you claimed to have made? Where is the link to the 'micro spots'? Or was all that just made up?
The fact that I also find 0.6 as Wolfer did is an indication that we both are doing the same thing. Are you suggesting that there are compensating 'errors' or issues that make the agreement just a coincidence? This sounds like special pleading to me.
There are other measures that corroborate the fact that Rw as I report them are compatible to the true Wolf numbers [and not the bastardized SIDC numbers you use]. E.g. the ratio between spots and groups. This ratio is 2.7 now and was the same for the original Wolf data, showing that he saw the same number of spots per group as we see today.
Micro spots
"They would not have been counted by Wolf either" and they are not spots with penumbra.
Not much more needs to be said really.
The 20 random selections was using the same data as you, your data is more thorough. A lot of selections were in June which came in at 0.46.
The reason I use the SIDC/Wolfer numbers for those spots that make the grade is to make allowance for the 22% Waldmeier factor along with the shortfall in the Wolfer 0.6 (or whatever SIDC uses) conversion which falls short as we have seen when speck activity is high.
I still cant see why you are in opposition, especially as the LSC is tracking right about where it should using the logic and figures from your paper. If I an radically wrong so are you.
"Not much more needs to be
"Not much more needs to be said really."
Oh yes, because you hang too much on a single case. I could say the same about the day where there was one big spot [Rw=11 with no ambiguity] and you having LSC=7. Not much more needs to be said really.
" A lot of selections were in June which came in at 0.46.". Simply show the 20 values, please. And you, of course, cherry picked the lowest one out of 0.68 0.68 0.69 0.50 0.61 0.46 0.53 0.68, mean = 0.60.
"I still cant see why you are in opposition, especially as the LSC is tracking right about where it should using the logic and figures from your paper. If I an radically wrong so are you."
Because you claim that LSC is restoring the Wolf standard. It is not, it is the Wolfer standard. My paper is also about restoring the Wolfer standard. Because Wolfer counts the way it should be done. All you have to do to make me [a bit more] happy is to say that LSC is an attempt to restore the Wolfer standard. Now, I'm not completely happy with that either, because you are mixing apples and oranges. If you really wanted to restore the Wolf standard [which I don't think you really want] then one has to go back to Wolf's method, and count his way. I think you are doing all this in order to compare with SC5. Those values are Wolf numbers [not Wolfer numbers] [actually neither because he didn't observe and many of the numbers are made up], and have not been reduced by 0.6 or any other monkey business, except for Wolf increasing them by 25% in 1875.
enough...
No, because as stated ad nauseum the LSC uses a threshold aimed at something like Wolf would have used, then uses the inflated SIDC count and instruments to arrive back at a level close to Wolf. If there was no modern inflation the .6 discount would not be used.
Your method of reconstructing the Wolf count is flawed, Wolfer was the best man on the planet to align his count with Wolf's and the geomagnetic record should agree with this.
The line of logical connection as expressed in your paper: Wolf had a method based on sound principles and used the geomagnetic record as a quality control item. Wolfer took over and made sure his values agreed with Wolf's but perhaps was not aware how an increased speck ratio might affect his 0.6 correction factor. Waldmeier inflated the figures by 22% which the SIDC keep pace with. The LSC filters out the pores and small spots as per Wolf and allows the current SIDC correction factor to take away the modern inflation. The SIDC values used are only for spots that make the grade.
Wolfer did align and found
Wolfer did align and found the 0.6 factor. Using Catania I find true Wolf numbers, as he would have. I also find true Wolfer numbers, and find the same 0.6 ratio and the same average number of spots per group. So everything fits nicely. The geomagnetic relation as Wolf used is by way of the FUV flux [or its excellent proxy the 10.7 cm microwave flux]. And that flux shows that the sunspot numbers are now undercounted:
and not inflated, and that is why my Catania Rw numbers are higher than SIDC [and LSC]. What is happening is that lately some spots have become pores, and some pores have become invisible [the Sun's natural threshold at 1500 Gauss], so both the Wolf number and the Wolfer number are dropping out of sight. This may be a sign of a Grand Minimum [would nicely explain the Maunder Minimum], but we can't reason the other way around, using the wish for a Grand Minimum to justify adjusting the sunspot number.
Your one step forward and two step backwards adjustments are ad hoc. For example, you have given no justification for your thresholds. Why those numbers?
LSC
We changed the way sunspots were counted way back in 1882. 17 years of counting both ways have shown that there is a simple proportionality between the old count and the new count, namely old = 0.6 * new. The discussion at landscheidt is incorrect and invalid.
Everybody since Wolfer in 1882 uses the 0.6 factor. [except NOAA]. The 0.6 thing is completely irrelevant and is just like converting from Fahrenheit to Centigrade. Waldmeier was probably over-counting the number of groups [using his own classification ( http://www.leif.org/EOS/1989JALPO-33.pdf ) although the precise nature of the jump is not yet clear.
The count the last decade or so is too small, not too large as you claim. And it would be nice if you dared use your real name rather than the pathetic 'jinki'.
The significant element of correct sunspot counting is NOT to introduce a bias beforehand by having a threshold for counting a spot. This Wolfer [and everybody else] saw so clearly way back in the 1880s. Whether or not you multiply by 0.6 to align yourself with Wolf's number is irrelevant. To make an honest comparison between NOAA and the rest you should multiply NOAA values by 0.6, instead of pretending that they use a different method [they do not].
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.
Here is a comparison NOAA-SIDC: http://www.leif.org/research/NOAA-vs-SIDC.png
The pink and green dots show SIDC/NOAA [left scale] and should cluster around the famous 0.6. Note the green dots are systematically lower.
And a comparison with many other organizations: http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-Undercounts.png
So, yes, SIDC is too low compared to what Wolf and Wolfer would have counted [properly scaled].
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.
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.
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: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-1785-1810.png
SC5 does not look well-determined.
ou 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].
You do not make any comparisons with the past. Where is the comparison of LSC and Wolf?
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: http://www.leif.org/research/GSNmonth.txt
The 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].
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.
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:
http://www.leif.org/research/Layman-Count-Comparison.png
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.
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].
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].
The middle column of ftp://ftp.geolab.nrcan.gc.ca/data/solar_flux/monthly_averages/maver.txt
Your 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.
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."
Summary
1. As agreed the modern count is higher than the Wolf reconstruction. The Layman's Count prefers to adjust the modern count and uses Wolf's threshold method. To repeat, the Layman's Count is not meant to replace the current systems. It's purpose is to compare SC24/SC25 with the Dalton Minimum.
2. The NOAA count is shown as they display it to the rest of the world. Ample notes in the text describe their non use of the .6 factor.
3. SC5 & SC14 were both counted before Waldmeier, so both would need to be adjusted up in your scenario.
Wolf
Except you have no idea what Wolf's threshold was. Nobody else has that either. So it is not possible to apply the unknown threshold.
And you misrepresent NOAA. Their method was NOT designed specifically to be different from Wolf's. You should say: NOAA follows precisely the same rules as everybody else since 1882. They have, however, elected not to multiply by 0.6. There is an urban myth that this was to avoid changing thousands of nomographs employed long ago by the US Air Force. I don't know for sure if this is true.
Threshold
Exactly, and we also don't know if he counted small specks that occur in large groups. He obviously had a threshold based on a reasonable spot size, the Layman's Count has done the same which is set at 23 pixels for the SOHO images and 333 for the SDO images. As I have said nothing is perfect but we think the Layman's method is far closer than the current counting methods.
NOAA by not including the .6 factor are using a different method...get over it.
You have no basis for saying
You have no basis for saying that your threshold is the same as his.
Using a different k-factor [k=1 for NOAA] is not using a different method. Every observer in the World has a different k. Therefore you are claiming that all methods are different. They are in fact identical as far as METHOD is concerned. Why is this so hard for you to admit?
Perhaps one way for you to see this it to here define what you mean by METHOD. My definition is that Wolf and Wolfer used different methods because Wolf did not count pores, while Wolfer did. Everybody who does not count pores then uses the Wolf method, and everybody who count everything they can see uses the Wolfer method. Everybody who only counts groups, uses the Hoyt&Schatten method. Agree to that? So, there are three methods [not counting the Layman's which you claim is the Wolf method anyway], correct? Or are there 574 methods [one for each observer woldwide], each with their own k-value?
BTW, if you want to approximate Wolf, then you should obviously multiply the SIDC numbers 'that make the grade' by 1.67. Example: assume there is just one big spot [as on ftp://ftp.ct.astro.it/sundraw/OAC_D_20100703_054000.jpg ] then Wolf would have counted that as one spot with Rw = 11. You [the LSC] however count it as R(LSC) = 7. This is not what Wolf would have done. You must multiply by 1.67 to get the Wolf number. I hope this is clear, and look forward to a revised Layman's count that can be used to compare with Wolf for cycle 5.
It is a bit worse than that. From 1861 on, Wolf used a small 'pocket telescope', for which the k-factor was 1.5. If on a given day he would see just one spot [no pores], like on July 3, 2010, he would have the observed Rw value as 10*1+1=11, and then multiply by 1.5 for an official count of Rw=16.5 which he always rounded down, so Rw for that day would be 16, more than twice the LSC. Example: on 2 Feb. 1876, Wolf reported 1 group and 1 spot, and gave the official number Rwolf = 16. Same for Feb. 6, 11, 26, 27, March 10, 11, 30, April 16, May 13, 14, 15, 16, etc.
So for July 3rd 2010, Wolf would have reported Rw = 16.
Wolf got it right....
Glad to have a conversation Leif, but please be logical. I do not have a basis to say the Layman's threshold is the same as Wolf's, but I suspect we are very close.
A counting method includes all factors required to achieve an outcome, NOAA have their own method which differs from the basic historical method.
Wolf started with a basic formula (the pocket telescope is irrelevant) that isolated small spots, Wolfer attempted to align his method (which included every speck) to Wolf's by adding the .6 discount. Wolfer only had a few years of history which did not include times of grand minima and had no idea that his .6 discount would not stand up in times like now. Later Waldmeir beefed up the numbers again by 22% as you say in your paper which has been adopted by the SIDC and further inflates the numbers. If there was no inflation you are correct, there would be no need to reduce the SIDC values by .6, but by counting as Wolf did with a threshold and applying the .6 discount to the current SIDC values the modern inflation is reduced back to value closer to how Wolf would have counted. So two factors remain which also demand downward pressure.....Wolf probably did not count the small specks in a larger group as we do now, and the very clear rise in the speck ratio puts pressure on the .6 factor being correct during times like these.
methods
I'm amazed at your lack of reason here. I gave you an explicit example of how Wolf did it, and why you have to [at least] multiply the LSC by 1.67 to be compatible with Wolf.
You gloss over the counting methods. Having a different scale factor [miles vs. kilometers] does not constitute a different method. So you are advocating there are as many counting methods as there are observers [i.e. hundreds]. This is clearly incorrect, they all use the same method today.
The pocket telescope is very relevant, because he increased his counts by 50% when using it.
Again: if there is just one clear spot [like on Jul 3rd, 2010], Wolf would have counted 11 for that if before 1861 and 16 for that after 1861. Agree?
So why don't you? NOAA does it correctly.
methods 2
I am also amazed, and wondering at your motivation and reasoning. You say in your own paper the current SIDC count is at least 22% over Wolfer's count which is probably higher than Wolf when considering the speck ratio today. Unless you are prepared to withdraw that paper we have no argument.
Your example is ludicrous, not worth a reply. You need to come up with something concrete, otherwise expect no response....its getting boring.
"You say in your own paper
"You say in your own paper the current SIDC count is at least 22% over Wolfer's count"
What this means is that all numbers [including Wolf's] before 1945 should be increased by 22% to bring them onto the same scale.
And my example still stands: for 7/3/2010 Wolf would have reported a SSN of 16 vs. LSC of 7. Now, if you want to express LSC on Wolfer's scale, you should multiply LSC by 0.6. That brings it back to 11., which is what NOAA also reported for that day.
End of argument
So you finally concede. You might like to increase the old values which suits your agenda of trying to hammer flat the solar record, but the Layman's Count prefers to compare with the old values and not change them.
If your talking about 1084 on the 3rd of July Wolf would have counted 11, just as NOAA did. This is of course cherry picking as NOAA (SIDC counting 8?) would have counted 100's of specks this year (each counting 11 or above) that Wolf would have ignored. Cheap shot Leif that I would have thought beyond a man of your background. Desperate times perhaps?
What value do you think Wolf would measure on today's 1099 group?? And would he have counted 1093 today, I doubt it. The NOAA count for today the 15th as at time of writing is 35, Wolf would have counted less than 20.
Surely you are not suggesting we use the NOAA sunspot count?
Of course, the old values
Of course, the old values must be increased, just as Wolf did twice, in 1861 and in 1875.
For 8/13, Wolf would have counted 2 groups and 3 spots, for Rw = 23 on his pre-1861 scale and 23*1.5=35 on his post 1861 scale. NOAA had 51 and SIDC 27 for 8/13.
I don't know what he would have counted for today.
But for August so far he would have counted [with his large telescope]:
8/2 11
8/3 12
8/4 35
8/5 48
8/6 47
8/7 45
8/9 33
8/10 45
8/11 58
8/12 46
8/13 23
scale
Why the 1.5 factor after 1861?
Are you suggesting he used his pocket telescope after 1861?
The pocket telescope might provide some insight into his threshold size. Obviously his threshold would include a spot that could be viewed by the pocket telescope. Do you know the magnification of his pocket telescope?
Interesting how you can provide his numbers without knowing his threshold size, your figures are ridiculous. I will come back with a proper analysis starting with the 12th.
The standard sunspot scope
The standard sunspot scope has a magnification of 64. The pocket telescope was 40, and is the recommended magnification.
The threshold is precisely defined by the distinction between a pore and a sunspot. The difference is that a pore is a spot [of any size] without a penumbra. Even Galileo saw and drew pores. The word 'pore' and its meaning go back to 19 May 1801.
Here is the difference
Here is the difference between us: all you say is 'ludicrous', 'ridiculous', 'desperate', and similar.
I give you examples, numbers, analysis.
We know quite well what his
We know quite well what his threshold was. A group contains spot and pores. Wolf did not count pores, but did count spots. So if a group had only pores it would not be counted. On 8/13 there were these groups
11093 2 spots 1 pore
noname 0 spots 10 pores
11098 1 spot 7 pores
http://web.ct.astro.it/sun/draw.jpg
So Wolfer would have counted 10*3+(3+18) = 51
Wolf would have 10*2+(3) = 23 as the 'noname' would not have been counted. If he had counted that using the pocket-telescope he would have reported Rw=35. Wolfer would reduce the full count by 0.6, to yield 31.
Small spots
Your paper says Wolf did not count pores and smallest spots. Therefore its not clear what his threshold size was. Your summary of his count for the 13th is at best a guesstimate and it could just as likely been 11 or 12. The SIDC figures are not in for that day so its hard to gauge the Layman's final count for that day but it might be as low as 8 or 9. Others days this month where there have been multiple single speck regions will show a much larger discrepancy between the LSC and SIDC/NOAA. The usual pattern is a large proportion of the days in a month the SIDC values are used by the LSC. The Waldmeier "factor" also has to be taken into consideration and if you look at the count comparison graph the LSC is tracking about where it should be, which verifies the method. The important consideration is that the count is not being inflated by the increasing speck ratio.
In your paper its unclear why Waldmeier's count is higher than Wolfer's, is it purely a matter of him using a different factor (not.6) that is now adopted by the SIDC?
It seems you have rigged your
It seems you have rigged your spam filter to prevent a reply. What happened to 'free speech' etc.?
paranoid?
I have no control over the spam filter...it is controlled by mollom.
you past behavior...
you past behavior...
IYou can see how that works
I'm not 'suggesting'. I KNOW, because he said so. I have read ALL his thousands of pages on this. Here is his report for 1874: It seems that the PDF triggered the filter. So we do it in small pieces: to be found at http://www.leif.org/EOS Wolf-XXXVIII.pdf put a slash '/' between EOS and Wolf
He says: "I have used my 2 1/2 foot telescope and not my old 4-foot telescope ... to convert values from the small telescope to the standard [large] one you have to multiply by 1.50 ..."
You can see how that works by looking at the Table on page 376. For April 24-30 he reports Wolf numbers of 16. How did he get to those numbers? To see that you scroll down to page 394 where Wolf reports his raw data. The format for each day is groups.spots, so for April 24-30 he reports a series of 1.1, meaning 1 group with 1 spot. According to his formula that should give Rw = 10*1 + 1 = 11. But since the observations were made with the smaller scope, he multiplies by 1.5 to give 11*1.5=16.5. which he rounds down to 16 [as I have explained several times]. So, for those days the Wolf number was 16. He used the smaller telescope increasingly from 1861 to his death in 1893. You can see that by seeing that the smallest Rwolf is always 16, not 11, for those years, except for [cloudy] days when he used observations from other people, which he multiplied by the factors applicable for them. This explains the occasional lower values, e.g. on Dec. 2 and 5. such values are marked by various symbols [asterisks, letter, etc].
Eureka!
Thankyou Geoff! I have been searching for a sunspot count that would be relevant to historical records and, Eureka, I've found it! It has been so very obvious to me that official counts have been recording specks, and then trying to compare apples with oranges. This should clear up alot of questions, great work!
spot was spotted
Can be seen here :
http://astrosurf.com/legault/iss_atlantis_2010_25.jpg
Its mystery explained here:
http://astrosurf.com/legault/iss_atlantis_transit_2010.html
Density of Solar Output
On Spaceweather, the proton density today is listed at ZERO protons per cm3. Is this because the escape velocity (now listed at 350 Km/sec) has not been reached? Oh, it now went up to 0.1 protons. <i>How does this work?</i>
Solar Wind
From what I can gather the density and speed of the solar wind can be related but not necessarily hard linked. Looking at the 7 day solar wind trends graph on the widget on the left hand menu of this site you can see they can get out of sync. The solar wind is also influenced by the magnetic wave motion generated in a spiral arm a bit like a lawn sprinkler, this can impact on the pressure build up within the wave. Not everything is known on the origin of the solar wind. I think the escape velocity is around 250 km/s.
Some interesting observations here:
The solar wind is divided into two components, respectively termed the slow solar wind and the fast solar wind. The slow solar wind has a velocity of about 400 km/s, a temperature of 1.4–1.6 × 106 K and a composition that is a close match to the corona. By contrast, the fast solar wind has a typical velocity of 750 km/s, a temperature of 8 × 105 K and it nearly matches the composition of the Sun's photosphere.[20] The slow solar wind is twice as dense and more variable in intensity than the fast solar wind. The slow wind also has a more complex structure, with turbulent regions and large-scale structures.[16][21]
The slow solar wind appears to originate from a region around the Sun's equatorial belt that is known as the "streamer belt". Coronal streamers extend outward from this region, carrying plasma from the interior along closed magnetic loops.[22][23] Observations of the Sun between 1996 and 2001 showed that emission of the slow solar wind occurred between latitudes of 30–35° around the equator during the solar minimum (the period of lowest solar activity), then expanded toward the poles as the minimum waned. By the time of the solar maximum, the poles were also emitting a slow solar wind.[24]
The fast solar wind is thought to originate from coronal holes, which are funnel-like regions of open field lines in the Sun's magnetic field.[25] Such open lines are particularly prevalent around the Sun's magnetic poles. The plasma source is small magnetic fields created by convection cells in the solar atmosphere. These fields confine the plasma and transport it into the narrow necks of the coronal funnels, which are located only 20,000 kilometers above the photosphere. The plasma is released into the funnel when these magnetic field lines reconnect.[26]
Flux Facts
Wow! This is more than I hoped to learn - thanks for the comprehensive response.
This makes a lot of sense now, and puts things in a bigger context for me. I have friends who work in fusion technology. The big deal in that technology is magnetic containment. As I watch the solar magnetic field loops warp and wane, then cut loose, I am reminded of the difficulty in devising the containment software for fusion technology. The software and hardware has to be powerful and rapid, needing Cray type processing at gigaflop rates, because the plasma field is so unstable that it has to be shepherded by asymmetric magnetic fields in nanosecond time, or else it whips out and escapes in a huge outburst, or flare that would destroy the machine making the variable "bottle". This is just like the flares associated with spot loci. You see the plasmas contained for a while, seething, then when they find a weak spot and break out all hell breaks loose with it!
I imagine the sunspots as associated with vortices deep in the mantle. Like a tornado, they either have wide vertical leads, as with wide powerful tornadoes that communicate with the source directly vertical to it, or they have spindly thin leads that wander far from the source of the vortex until they hit the surface with a small footprint. I guess the current research that has identified a fast mantle movement may generate a dislocated vortex, similar to the spindly tortuous tornado, that because of the rapid lateral movement of the source cloud, it loses strong linkage with the top of the vortex atop the wall cloud. Instead of straight up-and-down, it meanders. Except with the sun, the vortex comes from the bottom up, rather than top down like a tornado. Is my imagination relevant, if I have explained myself adequately?
The new sunspots
The new southern hemisphere region has shown surprising growth which is near equator, that indicates the SC24 already getting weak or SC23 still has some residues?