question

What modulates our Sun? The majority of science work on the principle that the Sun is self modulating and each solar cycle is a product of a random number generator. There are others that suspect the Sun is modulated by the planets with a special emphasis on Uranus & Neptune. Thanks to Carl Smith who has recently left us we have new knowledge that significantly adds to Jose, Landscheidt & Charvàtovà's work.

Geoff Sharp

Layman's Sunspot Count.

Share

SDO Sunspot

May Update:  This month saw a decrease in activity with the southern hemisphere continuing to dominate with about 70% of the activity recorded in the south, the north dropping off compared with last months temporary rise . The speck ratio staying around the 0.6 level and overall SC24 continues to demonstrate the higher proportion of small spots to large spots during SC24, if we take away the small spots counted in passing groups the ratio would be much higher. The LSC was measured at 42.23, SIDC 75.2, NOAA unadjusted at 116.8 (prov). NOAA this month again returning back to counting less than the SIDC.

The SIDC/NOAA and LSC/SIDC comparison graph showing a growing difference with the general trend continuing to rise over SC24.                                             

SC24 is still on track to be a lower cycle than SC5.

Layman's Sunspot Count critic Leif Svalgaard continues to compare SC24 with SC14, but so far SC24 is not looking anything like SC14. The extreme peaks and troughs are NOT occurring as he prescribes which is especially clear when comparing SC24 with the counting methods of earlier periods...Svalgaard uses the unscientific method of smoothing to compare cycles which hides the important detail. The LSC removes the  post 1945 22% Waldmeier factor that Svalgaard accepts and also adjusts for the increased speck ratio we experience during grand minimum type cycles. This increased speck ratio also gives us the flawed Livingston and Penn results as they measure every small spot.

Daily Update:

Three sunspot groups are recorded with the overall sunspot area increasing. The F10.7 flux values still not updating.

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
34 Locarno 49 38

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2121 3478 (3552) 67% (64%)
2123 1181 (557) 68% (61%)
2126 919 73%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
?? (??) 144.0 (137.2) 2014/07/27 08:00

F10.7 flux is adjusted values measured at Penticton for the associated day @ 20:00 UTC. E10.7 flux = daily SET EUV values (0-105nm). Bracketed figures denote the previous measurement. Regions not included do not pass the 336 pixel threshold. The LSC daily is the SIDC discounted value less the groups that fail the threshold test and questionable group splits. The Drawing Ref. is the drawing used that day that can include in order of preference Locarno, Catania and if both are not available the SDO image and a manual count (Waldmeier method). If available the SIDC value is Locarno x 0.6 (or Catania x 0.55). The LSC Avg. is the running average LSC for the current month. More Daily/Monthly records below. Click on the solar thumbnail for a full sized view.

My paper has finally been published in a peer reviewed journal.

Are Uranus & Neptune Responsible for Solar Grand Minima and Solar Cycle Modulation?

International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics September 3rd 2013 volume 3 number 3.

The full paper can be downloaded for free at:

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=36513&#reference

Official Paper downloads: 1666

NO L&P EFFECT?  

L&P's own data showing a rise in magnetic strength over SC24 once smaller spots are isolated.

Click on the image for a full sized view

More detail HERE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cycle 24 record sunspot area: Region 1967 @ 41567 pixels on 3rd February 2014.

 sc5 sc24 comparison

SC24 Summary:

Back in 2008 I made a prediction for SC24 based on what I think are solid foundations. The prediction was for a SSN value of less than 50 according to the old scale. So far I am on track but I also mentioned that SC24 might be a cycle where one hemisphere shuts down. The first peak of SC24 was around 2 years ago where we saw a Sun reach its peak totally dominated by the northern hemisphere, since then there has been a gradual decline in the north to a point where now the south has nearly completely taken over and is attempting to reach a peak similar to the north 2 years ago.

If both hemispheres had experienced this activity at the same time we might have had something close to a normal cycle but now with the prospect of the north shutting down completely some big questions remain. The northern hemisphere has switched polarity (just) and the south is attempting this process and with the new activity should do so, but if the north shuts down there may not be enough flux to take the hemisphere away from neutral. If so this could have ramifications for the next cycle, which I am expecting. What continues to play out with the south will also have consequences, will the south die off quickly as witnessed in the north which will mean the end of SC24 and if so will that hemisphere also have trouble breaking away from neutral? 

There is still much to play out that will possibly teach us why solar grand minima go for at least 2 cycles.

Main graphs updated monthly as soon as the LSC number is calculated (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) along with the GSN value from Hoyt & Schatten's alternative count which offers another comparison. All 4 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 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 (along with the Waldmeier scale factor) which I believe is flawed during times of high speck ratio.

SOLAR CYCLE 20/24 F10.7 FLUX COMPARISON.

To compare solar cycles we can also use the F10.7 radio flux values that have been recorded since 1947 in Canada. Solar cycle 20 was a weak cycle which is currently looking strong against solar cycle 24. Data is taken from the AU adjusted monthly average values.

SC20 & SC24 have a lot in common, they both experience angular momentum disturbance measured at the Sun. SC24 has a much higher degree of disturbance that will guarantee a lower cycle than SC20 if the theory is correct.

Updated Monthly.

SC24 SPECK RATIO

Below is the current speck ratio for solar cycle 24. Because the LSC employs a similar to Wolf spot threshold size to weed out the smaller groups we can calculate the difference between the SIDC values and obtain a speck ratio. This speck ratio only applies to groups that don't pass the threshold and do not apply to groups that pass and have a multitude of specks. These specks are still counted. Wolfer when he changed the system applied a 0.6 factor to his count because he was counting all specks and needed to stay aligned with Wolf. As we can see the speck ratio is already exceeding Wolfer's conversion factor and the LSC is still counting specks in groups that pass. So in reality the speck ratio is much higher. This is solid evidence that the Wolfer reduction factor used extensively today is not capable of aligning with the original Wolf count. The speck ratio is increasing during what is looking like a grand minimum type cycle.

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 sunspot groups that make the grade and then measure how many green channel pixels are in the 0-132 pixel range and then calculate the proportion of that darker area over the entire pixels in that group . The Layman's method is not hampered by available telescope time, cloud cover and daytime only viewing, but uses the daily SDO images. The older SOHO values  pre March 2010 have been calibrated to fit the SDO scale. So far the Layman's results are in direct contrast to the L&P.

Click on the graph for a larger image.

The above graph is a measure of the group or region darkness for every group daily since August 2010. The preceding graph is measured differently and only records the highest reading achieved by each group, the above graph represents the latter half of the preceding graph (and beyond) and is measuring the higher plateau. The values are taken from the beginning of the SDO project, prior to these values the SOHO records were used and display a lower start to the cycle if appended. Only groups that pass the threshold are included but specks in included groups also contribute to the darkness measurement. The better method would be to only measure individual spots that pass the threshold which could be a project for someone that might be interested. The first 9 months of the SDO data is heavily influenced by unipolar regions which were a lot darker than other regions, but after that the movement of the darkness record roughly follows the sunspot trend (perhaps leading which could be useful) with matching peaks at the highest point in October/November 2011 which may ultimately turn out to be the highest point in SC24. Although this cycle is very weak the data shows the magnetic strength is moving with sunspot activity.  The measurements recorded are very accurate and do not rely on telescope time, day time readings, cloud cover and is less affected by the rising speck ratio. Every pixel is measured accurately by software that records darkness from the pristine SDO images. This measurement of sunspot magnetic strength differs from the L&P method, but I believe it is more accurate, of interest is that my method suggests sunspot visibility occurs around the 40-45% on the darkness ratio scale, there is certainly no danger of all spots recording that value any time soon.

The data shows the magnetic strength albeit weak this time around follows the natural amplitude of the solar cycle. The graph below is the overall solar disk measurement that I also record daily and is not subject to a Wolf type threshold. The same trend is observed with the peak in darkness aligning with the peak in solar activity for SC24.

A BRIEF HISTORY ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE SUNSPOT COUNT.

 
Rudolf Wolf in 1855 commissioned the Fraunhofer 80mm / 1100 mm Refractor 64x telescope, here observed on the southern terrace of the Swiss Federal Observatory in Zurich. A Merzsche Polarization filter system for variable adjustment of detectable sunlight fitted, which enables safe viewing of the solar photosphere.Click on the pic for a larger view  

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, later in 1902 Wolfer looks to have reduced Wolf's SC5/6 values after discovering extra data not available to Wolf (under investigation). Wolf's reconstruction is also backed up by the Group Sunspot Number which shows very similar cycles during the Dalton Minimum. The GSN employs 32 observers during this period (only several were available to Wolf). The depth of the Dalton Minimum is beyond question.

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 has a 40mm aperture and a magnification of 40x 20x compared to the larger telescope of 64x, the larger telescope having an aperture of 80mm and a focal length of 1100mm. To my knowledge both telescopes used a polarizing filter and did not use the projection method. During his time Wolf did not count small spots and specks, he set a threshold size that is now lost to science but it was set for two very good reasons.

1. He was trying to match his records with the past, the prior records were recorded through telescopes of lesser technology. Even so he had to make adjustments to the older record.

2. His own telescope only saw the minor spots/specks when conditions were good. (Today we can see even smaller specks with the 150mm equipment)

Wolf set a threshold for good reason, we should have preserved his vision.

His successor Wolfer in the 1880's marks a change in direction in how sunspots are counted. Wolfer began counting all small spots and pores along with recording each umbral area within a penumbra which differs from the Wolf method. He  introduced a reduction factor to his count to align with Wolf. Exactly how he arrived at his factor is currently being investigated but Wolfer crosschecked the 0.6 K factor for 17 years against Wolf's count and telescope. Update Sept 2012: new data suggests the original Wolf 80mm was greatly enhanced in 1864, with Wolf apparently not using the instrument after that. Later in 1883 Wolfer produced daily drawings on 25cm projection, which is thought to greatly enhance the spot counting performance. When Wolfer applied his 0.6  K factor he did not experience a grand minimum,  Wolfer must have been unaware that during grand minima where the speck count could be much higher the 0.6 K factor would not be sufficient to stop the values being overstated. The ratio of specks is where the potential for divergence lies, recent data is showing that SC24 is experiencing a large drop off of large spots with an increase in small spots.

Brunner followed on from Wolfer and continued his method up to 1945, where Waldmeier took over and a step change was introduced. Recent analysis HERE suggests the modern SIDC sunspot record is at least 22% higher than the late 1880's Wolfer values. Waldmeier introduced a new method of counting spots where extra weighting was applied to groups, the weighting factor is as follows: “a speck is counted once, A larger one but still without penumbra {a pore} is given the statistical weight 2 [i.e. counted twice], a small ordinary spot 3, and a large one 5 [i.e. counted 5 times]“ (Locarno have also scored single spots with 4&6). This addition to the historical count marks the greatest movement away from the Wolf method that needs adjustment when comparing the modern count. Waldmeier may have confused Wolfer's change to the umbral counting as a weighting system already introduced, this is still an area of current investigation. Update Sept 2012: There is emerging evidence that Brunner was using a weighting system, how this affected his count is still unclear.

The SIDC when taking over from Waldmeier in 1981 calibrated their results against the Waldmeier count and still use the  weighting factor at the SIDC reference station at Locarno, which has been in operation for over 50 years. When comparing the NOAA adjusted count to the SIDC count there are some inconsistencies prior to 2001 that are currently being investigated. Leif Svalgaard and myself have opposing views on this issue, which the SIDC have taken onboard.

The evolution of the sunspot record has made it difficult to formulate a homogeneous record (the SIDC are doing a great job in a difficult arena). Before Wolfer there was mainly 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 that is the only equal comparison. The aperture lenses are nearly twice the diameter and the focal lengths are more than twice the length of Wolf's 64x scope, the design of the optics is also unknown on the modern scopes which can also make quite a difference, these motor driven, auto cooled/no tube telescopes are a far cry from Wolf's telescopes (Note: according to Leif Svalgaard the Locarno telescope is stopped down to 80mm). Wolf used a 1.5 K factor when using his smaller telescope, but 1.5 x zero is still zero which suggests Wolf must of been able to see his sunspot threshold through the smaller telescope.

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. The Waldmeier step is currently built into this standard.

Isolating specks by setting a "Wolf like threshold" and adopting the SIDC count for the groups that make the grade the Layman’s Count although not perfect, attempts to redress some of the modern issues and should compare more favorably to Wolf’s (and possibly Wolfer's) reconstruction of the Dalton Minimum cycles.

SOME BASIC MATHS TO DETERMINE SPECK DETECTION.

When it comes to observing specks there are two main players. The size of the aperture lens and the atmospheric conditions. Below is a list of what is possible in arc seconds from the appropriate lens diameter of a refractor type telescope.. This assumes perfect viewing and distortion free lenses. 1 arc second is equal to 725 kilometers on the solar surface.

Diameter Arc sec Km
40mm 2.93 2124
50mm 2.32 1682
70mm 1.66 1203
80mm 1.45 1051
110mm 1.05 735
150mm .77 558

Using the current SDO images it can be determined that the Sun is about 3800 pixels wide in the 4096 x 4096 images. The Sun is 1392000 kilometers across so each pixel measures 366 kilometers. The smallest specks recorded by Catania look to be about 700 kilometers across. If so the Wolf 80mm telescope on a perfect day with perfect optics is not capable of achieving this resolution, the 40mm aperture is nowhere near it. The current Wolfcam is also not capable of picking up the smallest specks that are counted today.

 

 

Atmosphere conditions or "seeing" is the next vital component. The very best conditions are achieved at night high up on mountain ridges that face the larger oceans. The very best conditions yield a max of 0.5 arc seconds. During the day conditions are weakened by solar activity in the atmosphere, so the atmosphere plays a big part in what is observable. Catania is capable of seeing 1000km wide specks in level 3 conditions. It becomes obvious that the new 150mm telescopes are capable of recording much smaller specks than Wolf's 80mm telescope.

Pictured left is the Layman's dual telescope, the top telescope is a 70mm aperture stopped down to 40mm set up with an old style Kellner 40x lens 20x lens which is a very close replica to Wolf's handheld telescope. The larger telescope using modern optics is an Orion 110mm aperture premium ED stopped down to 80mm with a 64x lens and should be very close to the original Wolf observatory telescope along with the official Locarno telescope used by the SIDC as its benchmark.   Both telescopes are fitted with "Seymour" solar filters. Click on the pic for a larger view.

 

In summary we have several contributing factors that are undeniably adding to the modern sunspot record.

1. The Waldmeier factor adding 22% via a different counting method that is still used by SIDC today (Leif Svalgaard)

2. A higher speck ratio during SC24 that was not considered by Wolfer when applying his 0.6K factor. Wolfer compared his count with Wolf's baby 20x telescope which is less than satisfactory. Wolf's eye sight was also questionable during this period.

3. The projection method introduced in 1883 producing a step increase in spot numbers that is shown via many metrics.

4. Moving to multiple world wide viewers taken over 24 hours increasing available coverage.

5. Modern 150mm telescopes able to resolve smaller specks than Wolf's 80mm & 40mm telescopes (this would mainly apply on days where Catania is used instead of Locarno) but the original Wolf 80mm telescope was upgraded significantly when Wolfer and his successors took over.

There is one outstanding issue: Does the modern projection method apply a 64X magnification at the viewing aperture or at the projected image?

Thanks to those supporting the LSC on WUWT, Svalgaard continues to call the method "uncalibrated junk" but misses the point as usual. The LSC removes the Waldmeier factor (like a bad calibrator) in the current record which is a universal requirement and it also adjusts for the increased speck ratio experienced during grand minima. Wolf used a tiny 40mm 20x telescope for the larger part of his observations which had a conversion factor to take it up to the 80mm telescope that Wolfer used. Wolfer introduced a further 0.6 correction factor because he counted all specks (Wolf had a threshold), but both correction factors where tested and applied outside of grand minimum type cycles...they had no way of knowing or how to correct for a grand minimum type cycle. The LSC in effect removes the "bad" calibration errors of the past.

Which ever way you cut it SC24 is following Wolf & Wolfers combined reconstruction of SC5 and looks nothing like SC14 (Svalgaard continues to make wild claims?). SC24 will be the lowest cycle in 200 years.

Image courtesy of Leif Svalgaard.

Graph showing that the difference between NOAA and the SIDC has been mostly constant but has drifted higher in the last few years suggesting either the SIDC is counting more or NOAA is counting less of late.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. 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.

The SOHO 1024 x 1024 Continuum images originally provided a good platform to 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 with fellow enthusiast Robert Bateman, a minimum standard was established.

SOHO Continuum zoomed to 1600xTo 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 08:00 UTC daily.

The minimum pixel area is now 333 pixels (0-150 in the green channel) which calibrates to the old 23 pixel threshold used in the SOHO images. The area conversion factor is 6.91%. The 24 hour rule will stay in place. Update 21st Dec 2012: New threshold limit of 336 arising from Mac platform change. All values rising 1% on gimp2 Mac version.

Sunspot areas included in the daily report indicate regions that pass the 333 pixel threshold but are still subject to the 24 hour rule. Because the SIDC can split NOAA numbered groups, final determination cannot be performed until month end.

LAYMAN'S SUNSPOT THRESHOLD 333 PIXEL EXAMPLE.

 

On March 28th 2011 at 4:00 UTC NOAA sunspot region 1180 (11180) was recorded by the SDO satellite. This region matches exactly the Layman's threshold and can be used to compare a likely threshold used by Wolf. When looking at region 1180 through the Layman's 40mm Wolf replica handheld telescope the penumbra/umbra areas are NOT distinguishable. (Update Sept 2012, it is now apparent the Wolf handheld had a magnification of 20x not 40x as previously suggested)  A group is not counted unless one spot within that group meets or exceeds 333 pixels. Now 336 pixels, see above.

 

IMPROVEMENTS TO THE LAYMAN'S SUNSPOT COUNT: June 2012  
In the past because of internet restrictions I was unable to perform the daily update around the same time as the SIDC pilot station (Locarno). Now that the restriction is solved I will use the 08:00 UTC image which is about the average time of the Locarno image making the counting a little more precise, plus I will have access to the drawing. I have also had several requests to post a daily LSC value along with a running monthly average which with a minor change I can now provide. I think this will be a major improvement and should highlight the daily differences between the different counting methods. In the past I used the daily SIDC value to work out the daily K factor for the Locarno drawing which I had to wait until the end of month to obtain. I will now assume a daily 0.6 K factor which is the long term monthly average and should not make any noticeable change to the LSC monthly value.  

 

NEW AREA BASED MEASUREMENT,DSN.

A new counting method will run in conjunction 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 08:00 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).

The DSN method will not use the 333 pixel or 24 hour rule but will use the same green channel readings from the Layman's Count and darkness ratio methods.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JULY NEWS

Two sunspot groups are recorded with the overall sunspot area increasing slightly. The monthly average still dropping.

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
25 Manual -- 38

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2121 3552 (3419) 64% (73%)
2123 557 61%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
?? (??) 137.2 (138.2) 2014/07/26 08:00

One sunspot group is recorded with the overall sunspot area increasing slightly. Another big day of difference between the SIDC and LSC. Region 2121 displaying strong magnetic strength.

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
16 Locarno 53 39

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2121 3419 (2934) 73% (67%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
?? (??) 138.2 (129.5) 2014/07/25 08:00

One sunspot group is recorded with the overall sunspot area increasing. The moving average is likely to go sub 40 tomorrow.

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
13 Manual -- 40

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2121 2934 (1634) 67% (53%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
?? (102.2) 129.5 (122.6) 2014/07/24 08:00

Two sunspot groups are recorded with the overall sunspot area increasing slightly. Some increased activity is expected over the next week, although the fire in the belly is perhaps not so strong..My paper has been getting a run on downloads lately.

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
20 Manual -- 41

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2119 433 (1029) 58% (56%)
2121 1634 53%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
102.2 (95.5) 122.6 (123.9) 2014/07/23 08:00

One sunspot group is recorded with the overall sunspot area increasing slightly. Some increased activity is expected over the next week.

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
11 Manual -- 42

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2119 1029 (1652) 56% (54%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
95.5 (93.0) 123.9 (119.8) 2014/07/22 08:00

One sunspot group is recorded with the overall sunspot area increasing slightly. The weak conditions continue.

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
12 Manual -- 44

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2119 1652 (1340) 54% (61%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
93.0 (89.9) 119.8 (117.3) 2014/07/21 08:00

One sunspot group is recorded with the overall sunspot area increasing. The spotless run has ended for now, but activity remains very low.

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
19 Manual -- 45

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2119 1340 61%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
89.9 (88.9) 117.3 (113.2) 2014/07/20 08:00

A fifth spotless day is recorded with overall sunspot area increasing. The spotless run may come to an end tomorrow. F10.7 flux today going below 90.

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
0 Locarno 25 47

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
**SPOTLESS** **SPOTLESS** **SPOTLESS**
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
88.9 (91.4) 113.2 (115.1) 2014/07/19 08:00

A fourth spotless day is recorded with a chance of more to follow. Current conditions are unusual for a cycle this far past solar pole polarity reversal. The moving average now sub 50 and falling.

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
0 Locarno 10 49

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
**SPOTLESS** **SPOTLESS** **SPOTLESS**
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
91.4 (91.5) 115.4 (114.1) 2014/07/18 08:00

A third spotless day is recorded with a chance of more to follow, Locarno recording a zero day also without a speck to be found. F10.7 flux down to solar minimum levels.

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
0 Locarno 0 52

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
**SPOTLESS** **SPOTLESS** **SPOTLESS**
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
91.5 (95.1) 114.1 (118.9) 2014/07/17 08:00

A second spotless day is recorded with the strong possibility of more to follow, Locarno tomorrow may not be able to find a speck to count. F10.7 flux dropping to very low levels. My paper on Grand Minima getting close to 1600 official downloads. 

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
0 Locarno 7 56

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
**SPOTLESS** **SPOTLESS** **SPOTLESS**
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
95.1 (103.9) 118.9 (127.3) 2014/07/16 08:00

A spotless day is recorded with the possibility of more to follow. F10.7 flux already challenging the 100 barrier. My paper on Grand Minima getting close to 1600 official downloads.  Some odd coronal holes noticed by reader Brent today.

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
0 Manual -- 59

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
**SPOTLESS** **SPOTLESS** **SPOTLESS**
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
103.9 (113.0) 127.3 (134.2) 2014/07/15 08:00

One region is recorded with the overall area  decreasing. The live SDO image is spotless as I type with F10.7 flux already heading towards 100..

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
8 Manual -- 63

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2109 2142 (4870) 82% (83%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
113.0 (131.0) 134.2 (144.9) 2014/07/14 08:00

One region is recorded with the overall area  decreasing. The monthly average now in freefall.

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
10 Manual -- 68

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2109 4870 (8278) 83% (80%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
131.0 (149.9) 144.9 (149.2) 2014/07/13 08:00

Two regions are recorded with the overall area  decreasing. The monthly average dropping quickly along with other measures, the back half of the month could be very different from the front half. Plenty of magnetic strength today.

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
28 Manual -- 73

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2108 5530 (8890) 70% (67%)
2109 8278 (11080) 80% (77%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
149.9 (171.8) 149.2 (154.0) 2014/07/12 08:00

Five regions are recorded with the overall area  decreasing. The monthly average now on the way down...looking like another mixed month.

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
86 Manual -- 79

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2107 1455 (2579) 68% (72%)
2108 8890 (12858) 67% (69%)
2109 11080 (13632) 77% (74%)
2111 954 (1972) 56% (57%)
2114 761 (1033) 56% (51%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
171.8 (183.3) 154.0 (161.2) 2014/07/11 08:00

Seven regions are recorded with the overall area now decreasing. Most measurements suggesting a dropping off of activity with F10.7 and E10.7 falling quickly.

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
86 Manual -- 79

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2104 701 (1584) 46% (56%)
2107 2579 (3718) 72% (71%)
2106 464 (1451) 61% (55%)
2108 12858 (17278) 69% (67%)
2109 13632 (14417) 74% (75%)
2111 1972 (1401) 57% (53%)
2114 1033 (873) 51% (54%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
183.3 (205.0) 161.2 (170.9) 2014/07/10 08:00

Seven regions are recorded with the overall area now decreasing. Regions 2113/5 did not pass the 24 hour rule and are removed from the record.

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
85 Locarno 112 78

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2104 1584 (2991) 56% (62%)
2107 3718 (4555) 71% (72%)
2106 1451 (2027) 55% (59%)
2108 17278 (21356) 67% (71%)
2109 14417 (15964) 75% (71%)
2111 1401 (1288) 53% (57%)
2114 873 (530) 54% (42%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
205.0 (208.1) 170.9 (173.3) 2014/07/09 08:00

Nine Seven regions are recorded with the overall area increasing slightly. Sunspot darkness/magnetic strength dropping off today somewhat. The monthly average should begin its downward spiral in a few days.

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
97 Manual -- 77

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2104 2991 (4483) 62% (61%)
2107 4555 (5499) 72% (75%)
2106 2027 (2269) 59% (64%)
2108 21356 (18682) 71% (71%)
2109 15964 (15862) 71% (72%)
2111 1288 (1227) 57% (62%)
2114 530 42%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
208.1 (204.5) 173.3 (174.0) 2014/07/08 08:00

Six regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. Sunspot darkness/magnetic strength remaining at high levels.

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
80 Maual -- 77

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2104 4483 (6218) 61% (61%)
2107 5499 (6007) 75% (75%)
2106 2269 (2725) 64% (62%)
2108 18682 (14620) 71% (71%)
2109 15862 (14412) 72% (72%)
2111 1227 (1121) 62% (57%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
204.5 (207.7) 174.0 (174.1) 2014/07/07 08:00

Six regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. Sunspot area and F10.7 is larger than usual for this grand minimum type cycle but the solar wind is hardly blowing and flare activity remains flat.

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
82 Maual -- 76

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2104 6218 (8419) 61% (63%)
2107 6007 (6258) 75% (72%)
2106 2725 (2777) 62% (60%)
2108 14620 (8112) 71% (69%)
2109 14412 (12760) 72% (69%)
2111 1121 (938) 57% (58%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
207.7 (199.4) 174.1 (171.2) 2014/07/06 08:00

Seven regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. The current run of sunspots is proving to be more active than first observed.

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
111 Locarno 139 75

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2104 8419 (10542) 63% (64%)
2107 6258 (6765) 72% (72%)
2106 2777 (3100) 60% (58%)
2108 8112 (2656) 69% (65%)
2109 12760 (8526) 69% (71%)
2102 735 (1318) 66% (63%)
2111 938 (493) 58% (51%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
199.4 (193.9) 171.2 (171.2) 2014/07/05 08:00

Seven regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. F10.7 flux going through the 200 barrier on the live data but Stereo Behind looking very quiet.

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
83 Manual -- 66

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2104 10542 (11535) 64% (66%)
2107 6765 (6583) 72% (71%)
2106 3100 (3557) 58% (62%)
2108 2656 (1492) 65% (54%)
2109 8526 (3659) 71% (67%)
2102 1318 (1825) 63% (65%)
2111 493 51%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
193.9 (184.1) 171.2 (165.4) 2014/07/04 08:00

Six regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. F10.7 flux rising much faster than EUV (E10.7)

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
80 Manual -- 61

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2104 11535 (10636) 66% (66%)
2107 6583 (5840) 71% (66%)
2106 3557 (1499) 62% (61%)
2108 1492 (689) 54% (61%)
2109 3659 (887) 67% (53%)
2102 1825 65%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
184.1 (175.1) 165.4 (162.5) 2014/07/03 08:00

Five regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. The usual monthly peak now in action, but the peak in my opinion seems to be getting weaker for the past few months?

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
65 Manual -- 51

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2104 10636 (8197) 66% (68%)
2107 5840 (4538) 66% (63%)
2106 1499 61%
2108 689 61%
2109 887 53%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
175.1 (156.9) 162.5 (142.6) 2014/07/02 08:00

Two regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. Another good example today of how the modern counting method does not work during grand minimum type cycles...Locarno going mad and nearly 3 times greater than the LSC.

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
37 Locarno 103 37

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2104 8197 (5136) 68% (68%)
2107 4538 (2453) 63% (59%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
156.9 (145.2) 142.6 (137.1) 2014/07/01 08:00

 

JUNE NEWS

 

Three regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. The LSC monthly average for June is 36.9 showing another low month well below the Dalton Minimum average max when counted via the old method.

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
40 Locarno 93 36.9

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2096 1083 (1762) 62% (59%)
2104 5136(2048) 68% (63%)
2107 2453 59%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
145.2 (129.9) 137.1 (129.1) 2014/06/30 08:00

Two regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. Some new activity on the eastern limb that will have little affect on the June monthly average that will finish sub 40.

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
22 Manual -- 37

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2096 1762 (2182) 59% (55%)
2104 2048 63%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
129.9 (118.4) 129.1 (124.1) 2014/06/29 08:00

One region is recorded with the overall area decreasing. The moving average still moving down..

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
10 Manual -- 37

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2096 2182 (2237) 55% (57%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
118.4 (107.6) 124.1 (117.8) 2014/06/28 08:00

One region is recorded with the overall area decreasing. The difference between the LSC and SIDC will be larger this month because of the increased speck ratio, June is heading for a low month. The expected activity so far has just emerged as plage areas, but more could be in the pipeline tomorrow.

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
14 Locarno 52 38

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2096 2237 (2381) 57% (50%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
107.6 (103.3) 117.8 (115.3) 2014/06/27 08:00

One region is recorded with the overall area decreasing. Region 2098 failing the 24 hour rule and is removed from the record. New Region 2093 is not counted as it will rotate off the face within 24 hours. The moving average is now sub 40 which is significant for this stage in the cycle.

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
13 Locarno 44 39

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2096 2381 (2749) 50% (55%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
103.3 (100.2) 115.3 (114.8) 2014/06/26 08:00

Two One region is recorded with the overall area increasing. Some activity threatening to appear tomorrow that may end the recent quiet period. This month has been very mixed.

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
12 Locarno 39 40

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2096 2749 (1633) 55% (54%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
100.2 (96.6) 114.8 (113.5) 2014/06/25 08:00

One region is recorded with the overall area increasing.  Locarno and also NOAA splitting region 2096 today, splitting of groups has been a method of inflating the sunspot record that is currently in pratice at Locarno (The station that all SIDC is compared against). The LSC counts groups as Wolf would have seen them and in this case both spots were visible at the same time and the distance between is minor. The LSC will treat 2096/7 as one. The moving average heading lower still.

WUWT circus again today going to new lows, Eschenbach, Watts, Svalgaard and the groupies are actually trying to convince the world that the Little Ice Age (LIA) didnt experience cold temperatures during times of grand minima of the epoch. Eschenbach with his extremely nasty manner uses one data set and ignores the multitude of studies that cover the whole period of the LIA, and also fails to consider other climate drivers that are obviously part of the equation. WUWT just continues to slide further into the muck and judging by a lot of the comments I am not the only one of this opinion. Get your act together Anthony while you still have some credibility left. UPDATE: Cowboy Willis is loosing the plot and not handling the barrage of pressure hitting him very well. I would think this must affect his health, but today he has admitted that just because solar grand minima through the LIA coincide with cold periods the Sun is not necessarily involved??, I am not sure what is left other than the short term effects from volcanic eruptions.. He is also abusing long time posters at WUWT along with distinguished scientists and today showed he had never heard of the Gleissberg Minimum....why does Watts put up with him?? (the Gleissberg Minimum IMO was not a solar grand minimum but still regarded as one by many)

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.

Yesterday my paper passed through the 1500 official downloads from IJAA. I have even been asked to review a couple of solar papers...wonders never cease, look out Leif, the shoe may be on the other foot someday.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
10 Manual -- 41

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2096 1633 (871) 54% (50%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
96.6 (95.6) 113.5 (122.7) 2014/06/24 08:00

One region is recorded with the overall area decreasing.  F10.7 flux dropping to levels seen during the past cycle minimum but still Locarno counting a massive raw sunspot count of 92. Today is an extreme example of how the Wolfer conversion factor and better telescopes completely get it wrong, some of the specks counted today I would estimate to be around 1300 km wide which during type 2 seeing conditions should not be visible through a 64X 80mm aperture telescope. I suspect the current method of projection is achieving better results than in Wolf's day.

Here in the South East of Australia we are experiencing a massive winter day after a somewhat warmer period caused by blocking highs recently. The low pressure cells are back with a vengeance. On this topic the WUWT circus again today going to new lows, Eschenbach, Watts, Svalgaard and the groupies are actually trying to convince the world that the Little Ice Age (LIA) didnt experience cold temperatures during times of grand minima of the epoch. Eschenbach with his extremely nasty manner uses one data set and ignores the multitude of studies that cover the whole period of the LIA, and also fails to consider other climate drivers that are obviously part of the equation. WUWT just continues to slide further into the muck and judging by a lot of the comments I am not the only one of this opinion. Get your act together Anthony while you still have some credibility left.

New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT.

Today my paper passed through the 1500 official downloads from IJAA. I have even been asked to review a couple of solar papers...wonders never cease, look out Leif, the shoe may be on the other foot someday.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
8 Locarno 55 43

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2096 871 50%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
95.6 (97.3) 122.7 (122.5) 2014/06/23 08:00

One region is recorded with the overall area decreasing.  Current conditions are more similar to cycle minimum with F10.7 flux dropping to 97.3, the moving average also dropping quickly. New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. Watts needs to get his act together?

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
8 Manual -- 44

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2090 656 (1055) 54% (64%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
97.3 (104.5) 122.5 (125.3) 2014/06/22 08:00

Three regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing.  Region 2093 has again failed to pass the 24 hour rule and is removed from the record, overall activity very low. New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. Watts needs to get his act together?

In a Solar article  on WUWT both Svalgaard and Archibald fail to discount SC24 when comparing with SC5. Interestingly Svalgaard also accuses Archibald of cherry picking but fails to mention the Waldemeir factor which is just one adjustment that needs to be performed on the SC24 record. Considering he is the main pusher of adjusting the SSN record you would think Svalgaard would play fair?? Another case of his selective presentation of facts. And still one day later no one has raised the issue?

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
25 Locarno 61 46

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2087 655 (1383) 50% (63%)
2090 1055 (1482) 64% (68%)
2094 893 (1252) 56% (45%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
104.5 (105.5) 125.3 (124.1) 2014/06/21 08:00

Four Three regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing.  Region 2093 has returned but may again struggle to pass the 24 hour rule tomorrow. F10.7 flux values very close to 100. New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. Watts needs to get his act together?

In a Solar article yesterday on WUWT both Svalgaard and Archibald fail to discount SC24 when comparing with SC5. Interestingly Svalgaard also accuses Archibald of cherry picking but fails to mention the Waldemeir factor which is just one adjustment that needs to be performed on the SC24 record. Considering he is the main pusher of adjusting the SSN record you would think Svalgaard would play fair?? Another case of his selective presentation of facts. And still one day later no one has raised the issue?

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
25 Locarno 51 47

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2087 1383 (2252) 63% (61%)
2090 1482 (1800) 68% (61%)
2094 1252 (1284) 45% (53%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
105.5 (114.7) 124.1 (129.2) 2014/06/20 08:00

Three regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing.  Region 2093 has failed to pass to pass the 24 hour rule and is removed from the record.

In a Solar article yesterday on WUWT both Svalgaard and Archibald fail to discount SC24 when comparing with SC5. Interestingly Svalgaard also accuses Archibald of cherry picking but fails to mention the Waldemeir factor which is just one adjustment that needs to be performed on the SC24 record. Considering he is the main pusher of adjusting the SSN record you would think Svalgaard would play fair?? Another case of his selective presentation of facts. And still one day later no one has raised the issue?

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
26 Manual -- 48

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2087 2252 (3361) 61% (67%)
2090 1800 (2401) 61% (61%)
2094 1284 (960) 53% (52%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
114.7 (114.4) 129.2 (124.6) 2014/06/19 08:00

Five Four regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing.  F10.7 values getting close to the 100 mark again. Region 2093 may struggle to pass the 24 hour rule tomorrow. In a Solar article today on WUWT both Svalgaard and Archibald fail to discount SC24 when comparing with SC5. Interestingly Svalgaard also accuses Archibald of cherry picking but fails to mention the Waldemeir factor which is just one adjustment that needs to be performed on the SC24 record. Considering he is the main pusher of adjusting the SSN record you would think Svalgaard would play fair?? Another case of his selective presentation of facts.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
52 Manual -- 50

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2087 3361 (3970) 67% (68%)
2090 2401 (2747) 61% (60%)
2089 1561 (4145) 57% (55%)
2094 960 (678) 52% (48%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
114.4 (118.0) 124.6 (125.6) 2014/06/18 08:00

Four regions are recorded with the overall area increasing slightly.  F10.7 values continue to fall.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
44 Locarno 68 50

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2087 3970 (2766) 68% (68%)
2090 2747 (3069) 60% (54%)
2089 4145 (5188) 55% (63%)
2094 678 48%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
118.0 (120.5) 125.6 (131.9) 2014/06/17 08:00

Three regions are recorded with the overall area staying about the same. The moving average and the F10.7 values moving down to  low levels.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
33 Locarno 58 50

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2087 2766 (3635) 68% (60%)
2090 3069 (3014) 54% (63%)
2089 5188 (4293) 63% (67%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
120.5 (134.3) 131.9 (137.7) 2014/06/16 08:00

Three regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. The moving average now heading south along with most other indicators.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
38 Manual -- 52

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2087 3635 (4304) 60% (61%)
2090 3014 (2592) 63% (63%)
2089 4293 67%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
134.3 (148.0) 137.7 (140.7) 2014/06/15 08:00

Five regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. The moving average should be heading lower tomorrow..

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
53 Locarno 94 53

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2080 1353 (5065) 58% (70%)
2082 1205 (2148) 57% (65%)
2085 1136 (5204) 77% (71%)
2087 4304 (4507) 61% (64%)
2090 2592 (2096) 63% (67%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
148.0 (157.5) 140.7 (146.4) 2014/06/14 08:00

Five regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. Region 2091 failing the 24 hour rule and is removed rom the record. F10.7 flux falling quickily perhaps heralding quieter times for next week.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
66 manual -- 56

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2080 5065 (5697) 70% (72%)
2082 2148 (4135) 65% (62%)
2085 5204 (8610) 71% (70%)
2087 4507 (3339) 64% (64%)
2090 2096 (1451) 67% (60%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
157.5 (179.9) 146.4 (152.5) 2014/06/13 08:00

Seven Six regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing slightly. Region 2091 may be struggling to pass the 24 hour rule tomorrow.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
87 Locarno 136 51

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2079 925 (1836) 63% (64%)
2080 5697 (6782) 72% (67%)
2082 4135 (5611) 62% (63%)
2085 8610 (11142) 70% (69%)
2087 3339 (2016) 64% (58%)
2090 1451 (700) 60% (49%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
179.9 (173.6) 152.5 (149.7) 2014/06/12 08:00

Six regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. The EUV (E10.7) values not rising to the same heights as the F10.7 flux.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
82 Manual -- 48

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2079 1836 (2641) 64% (71%)
2080 6782 (5266) 67% (65%)
2082 5611 (5266) 63% (65%)
2085 11142 (14090) 69% (69%)
2087 2016 (786) 58% (52%)
2090 700 49%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
173.6 (171.3) 149.7 (150.3) 2014/06/11 08:00

Five regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. The moving average moving up quick, but maybe moving in the other direction shortly.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
87 Locarno 111 45

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2079 2641 (2851) 71% (71%)
2080 5266 (6430) 65% (60%)
2082 5266 (5501) 65% (65%)
2085 14090 (12727) 69% (69%)
2087 786 52%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
171.3 (166.1) 150.3 (150.8) 2014/06/10 08:00

Five regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. Region 2085 showing there is still some fire in the belly.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
70 Manual -- 40

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2077 583 (1328) 51% (42%)
2079 2851 (3075) 71% (74%)
2080 6430 (7307) 60% (63%)
2082 5501 (6101) 65% (63%)
2085 12727 (7558) 69% (62%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
166.1 (153.1) 150.8 (144.7) 2014/06/09 08:00

Five regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. This months peak in activity is already showing signs of tailing off....Stereo Behind also not looking strong.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
71 Manual -- 36

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2077 1328 (2099) 42% (53%)
2079 3075 (3013) 74% (70%)
2080 7307 (5679) 63% (66%)
2082 6101 (7521) 63% (66%)
2085 7558 (3144) 62% (71%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
153.1 (140.8) 144.7 (143.8) 2014/06/08 08:00

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
62 Locarno 77 31

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2077 2099 (2271) 53% (59%)
2079 3013 (3014) 70% (69%)
2080 5679 (4313) 66% (63%)
2082 7521 (2702) 66% (73%)
2085 3144 71%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
140.8 (136.9) --- (144.2) 2014/06/07 08:00

Four regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. The recent lull is over with conditions returning to what is expected of a grand minimum cycle at cycle max.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
49 Locarno 69 26

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2077 2271 (2488) 59% (61%)
2079 3014 (2700) 69% (68%)
2080 4313 (1558) 63% (71%)
2082 2702 73%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
136.9 (113.8) 144.2 (132.3) 2014/06/06 08:00

Three regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. Region 2080 displaying plenty of darkness, as expected during cycle max.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
29 Locarno 51 22

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2077 2488 (2424) 61% (60%)
2079 2700 (2522) 68% (61%)
2080 1558 71%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
113.8 (108.5) 132.3 (127.8) 2014/06/05 08:00

Two regions are recorded with the overall area increasing slightly. Some new activity tomorrow that will bump up the record slightly.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
19 Manual -- 20

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2077 2424 (2360) 60% (60%)
2079 2522 (1989) 61% (68%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
108.5 (110.1) 127.8 (129.4) 2014/06/04 08:00

Two regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. The quiet times continue.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
20 Locarno 47 20

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2077 2360 (1636) 60% (53%)
2079 1989 (1399) 68% (62%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
110.1 (108.3) 129.4 (126.6) 2014/06/03 08:00

Two regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. F10.7 flux levels remaining low.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
22 Locarno 35 20

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2077 1636 (1078) 53% (62%)
2079 1399 (718) 62% (55%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
108.3 (106.2) 126.6 (123.9) 2014/06/02 08:00

Two regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. Another month off to a slow start.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
19 manual -- 19

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2077 1078 (490) 62% (52%)
2079 718 55%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
106.2 (106.6) 123.9 (126.3) 2014/06/01 08:00

MAY NEWS

Two regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. The LSC monthly mean for May is 42.23, showing a drop from last month. SC24 is right on track to emulate SC5. Twitter followers receive the update and graph as soon as it is posted.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
20 manual -- 42.23

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2075 503 (983) 73% (62%)
2077 490 52
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
106.6 (104.4) 126.3 (128.3) 2014/05/31 08:00

One region is recorded with the overall area staying the same. The solar doldrums continue, we may be witnessing a possible lower solar paradigm.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
10 manual -- 43

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2075 983 (1231) 62% (54%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
104.4 (105.5) 128.3 (126.1) 2014/05/30 08:00

One region is recorded with the overall area decreasing. Region 2076 fails the 24 hour rule and is removed from the record. The monthly average now dropping fast.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
8 manual -- 44

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2075 1231 (1046) 54% (48%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
105.5 (102.1) 126.1 (122.5) 2014/05/29 08:00

Two One region is recorded with the overall area staying about the same. Another typical grand minimum type cycle max monthly value in the pipeline. F10.7 Flux getting very close to the 100 barrier.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
8 manual -- 45

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2075 1046 (870) 48% (52%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
102.1 (108.7) 122.5 (130.8) 2014/05/28 08:00

One region is recorded with the overall area decreasing moderately. The monthly average now experiencing downward pressure.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
8 manual -- 47

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2075 870 (1006) 52% (45%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
108.7 (111.1) 130.8 (129.8) 2014/05/27 08:00

Three regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing moderately. The F10.7 flux still heading down, will we see a sub 100 value this cycle max?.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
31 manual -- 48

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2071 576 (955) 67% (55%)
2065 1071 (2597) 44% (64%)
2075 1006 (855) 45% (45%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
111.1 (116.0) 129.8 (135.2) 2014/05/26 08:00

Four regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. Region 2074 failing the 24 hour rule and is removed from the record.  The F10.7 flux reversing and now heading down again.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
49 manual -- 49

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2071 955 (1385) 55% (61%)
2073 1905 (1954) 62% (61%)
2065 2597 (946) 64% (69%)
2075 855 (450) 45% (46%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
116.0 (127.7) 135.2 (139.5) 2014/05/25 08:00

Five Four regions are recorded with the overall area increasing.  It looks like the north has gone to sleep again...

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
55 manual -- 49

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2071 1385 (2016) 61% (57%)
2073 1954 (1089) 61% (55%)
2065 946 69%
2075 450 46%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
127.7 (119.2) 139.5 (134.1) 2014/05/24 08:00

Three regions are recorded with the overall area increasing.  Some new activity brewing in the south on the live image.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
31 manual -- 49

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2061 373 (880) 46% (49%)
2071 2016 (1619) 57% (56%)
2073 1089 (575) 55% (56%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
119.2 (114.1) 134.1 (130.6) 2014/05/23 08:00

Three regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing.  F10.7 & E10.7 values remaining low. Some further evidence is presented that suggests the 14C solar proxy record is 340 years out at around -2850.

WUWT cowboy Willis Eschenbach has an interesting post re the Gleissberg cycle. The Gleissberg cycle is a supposed quasi 80 year solar cycle taken from a few hundred years of sunspot records edit: (and also seen across the Holocene proxy record). Eschenbach claims to have found a flaw in the Gleissberg methodology but he and Gleissberg fail to understand the mechanism in the background. I have attempted to educate Eschenbach but he refused to listen, but once understood it becomes clear why the 80 year cycle is not fixed in stone. My Powerwave article shows the 2 concepts required to understand the changing nature of the Gleissberg cycle that is now backed up by authors McCracken, Beer, Steinhilber etc in their latest paper. Judging by the comments on this topic on WUWT there is no understanding of these principles. If there are any questions I will be happy to answer on the Powerwave article.

Eschenbach backing up with another article on the Gleissberg cycle...he just doesnt get it. There is no exact 80-88 year cycle, only a most common gap of 80-88 years between low points in solar activity. The normal non grand minimum type  of low cycles at U/N opposition and the varying grand minima at the top of the U/N wave when near together. Grand minima occurring in different spots on the top of the wave.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
28 manual -- 49

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2061 880 (1372) 49% (59%)
2071 1619 (1135) 56% (54%)
2073 575 56%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
114.1 (116.7) 130.6 (129.4) 2014/05/22 08:00

Two regions are recorded with the overall area increasing slightly. The monthly moving average is threatening to go sub 50, with F10.7 & E10.7 values going very low again. Some further evidence is presented that suggests the 14C solar proxy record is 340 years out at around -2850.

WUWT cowboy Willis Eschenbach has an interesting post re the Gleissberg cycle. The Gleissberg cycle is a supposed quasi 80 year solar cycle taken from a few hundred years of sunspot records edit: (and also seen across the Holocene proxy record). Eschenbach claims to have found a flaw in the Gleissberg methodology but he and Gleissberg fail to understand the mechanism in the background. I have attempted to educate Eschenbach but he refused to listen, but once understood it becomes clear why the 80 year cycle is not fixed in stone. My Powerwave article shows the 2 concepts required to understand the changing nature of the Gleissberg cycle that is now backed up by authors McCracken, Beer, Steinhilber etc in their latest paper. Judging by the comments on this topic on WUWT there is no understanding of these principles. If there are any questions I will be happy to answer on the Powerwave article.

Eschenbach backing up with another article on the Gleissberg cycle...he just doesnt get it. There is no exact 80-88 year cycle, only a most common gap of 80-88 years between low points in solar activity. The normal non grand minimum type  of low cycles at U/N opposition and the varying grand minima at the top of the U/N wave when near together. Grand minima occurring in different spots on the top of the wave.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
20 manual -- 51

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2061 1372 (1707) 59% (55%)
2071 1135 54%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
116.7 (120.1) 129.4 (135.1) 2014/05/21 08:00

Two regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing with solar metrics still falling, the upcoming week does not look strong.

WUWT cowboy Willis Eschenbach has an interesting post re the Gleissberg cycle. The Gleissberg cycle is a supposed quasi 80 year solar cycle taken from a few hundred years of sunspot records edit: (and also seen across the Holocene proxy record). Eschenbach claims to have found a flaw in the Gleissberg methodology but he and Gleissberg fail to understand the mechanism in the background. I have attempted to educate Eschenbach but he refused to listen, but once understood it becomes clear why the 80 year cycle is not fixed in stone. My Powerwave article shows the 2 concepts required to understand the changing nature of the Gleissberg cycle that is now backed up by authors McCracken, Beer, Steinhilber etc in their latest paper. Judging by the comments on this topic on WUWT there is no understanding of these principles. If there are any questions I will be happy to answer on the Powerwave article.

Eschenbach backing up with another article on the Gleissberg cycle...he just doesnt get it. There is no exact 80-88 year cycle, only a most common gap of 80-88 years between low points in solar activity. The normal non grand minimum type  of low cycles at U/N opposition and the varying grand minima at the top of the U/N wave when near together. Grand minima occurring in different spots on the top of the wave.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
17 manual -- 52

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2061 1707 (1960) 55% (59%)
2066 675 (1265) 61% (64%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
120.1 (119.7) 135.1 (143.6) 2014/05/20 08:00

Three regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing with solar metrics still falling, F10.7 flux going very low. WUWT cowboy Willis Eschenbach has an interesting post re the Gleissberg cycle. The Gleissberg cycle is a supposed quasi 80 year solar cycle taken from a few hundred years of sunspot records edit: (and also seen across the Holocene proxy record). Eschenbach claims to have found a flaw in the Gleissberg methodology but he and Gleissberg fail to understand the mechanism in the background. I have attempted to educate Eschenbach but he refused to listen, but once understood it becomes clear why the 80 year cycle is not fixed in stone. My Powerwave article shows the 2 concepts required to understand the changing nature of the Gleissberg cycle that is now backed up by authors McCracken, Beer, Steinhilber etc in their latest paper. Judging by the comments on this topic on WUWT there is no understanding of these principles. If there are any questions I will be happy to answer on the Powerwave article.

Eschenbach backing up with another article on the Gleissberg cycle...he just doesnt get it. There is no exact 80-88 year cycle, only a most common gap of 80-88 years between low points in solar activity. The normal non grand minimum type  of low cycles at U/N opposition and the varying grand minima at the top of the U/N wave when near together. Grand minima occurring in different spots on the top of the wave.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
28 manual -- 54

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2060 1215 (1983) 56% (59%)
2061 1960 (2308) 59% (61%)
2066 1265 (1469) 64% (66%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
119.7 (130.4) 143.6 (145.3) 2014/05/19 08:00

Three regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing with solar metrics still falling. WUWT cowboy Willis Eschenbach has an interesting post re the Gleissberg cycle. The Gleissberg cycle is a supposed quasi 80 year solar cycle taken from a few hundred years of sunspot records. Eschenbach claims to have found a flaw in the Gleissberg methodology but he and Gleissberg fail to understand the mechanism in the background. I have attempted to educate Eschenbach but he refused to listen, but once understood it becomes clear why the 80 year cycle is not fixed in stone. My Powerwave article shows the 2 concepts required to understand the changing nature of the Gleissberg cycle that is now backed up by authors McCracken, Beer, Steinhilber etc in their latest paper. Judging by the comments on this topic on WUWT there is no understanding of these principles. If there are any questions I will be happy to answer on the Powerwave article.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
27 manual -- 55

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2060 1983 (2737) 59% (68%)
2061 2308 (2550) 61% (55%)
2066 1469 (1656) 66% (80%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
130.4 (136.6) 145.3 (149.2) 2014/05/18 08:00

Five regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. Region 2066 very dark at 80%. Downward pressure now being applied to the monthly moving average. My paper now moving through the 1400 official downloads with the trend continuing in a linear manner.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
55 manual -- 57

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2056 969 (2394) 68% (60%)
2060 2737 (3374) 68% (67%)
2061 2550 (2530) 55% (57%)
2063 1588 (2366) 61% (63%)
2066 1656 80%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
136.6 (141.8) 149.2 (148.9) 2014/05/17 08:00

Six regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing moderately. F10.7 and E10.7 flux continue to crash.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
66 manual -- 57

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2055 1842 (3553) 76% (79%)
2056 2394 (3890) 60% (56%)
2057 706 (1589) 51% (52%)
2060 3374 (3933) 67% (61%)
2061 2530 (2553) 57% (56%)
2063 2366 (3481) 61% (61%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
141.8 (155.5) 148.9 (158.6) 2014/05/16 08:00

Six regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. F10.7 and E10.7 flux on the decline.

The Group Darkness graph is updated and shows no drop off of magnetic strength over SC24 cycle max. This graph is made up of over 4000 individual daily readings of every group since May 2011.

 

 

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
65 manual -- 57

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2055 3553 (5305) 79% (78%)
2056 3890 (4683) 56% (58%)
2057 1589 (2300) 52% (56%)
2060 3933 (4872) 61% (61%)
2061 2553 (2061) 56% (55%)
2063 3481 (2688) 61% (68%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
155.5 (166.7) 158.6 (165.1) 2014/05/15 08:00

Six regions are recorded with the overall area staying the same. Overall conditions holding steady which is right at Dalton Minimum type values for solar max.

The Group Darkness graph is updated and shows no drop off of magnetic strength over SC24 cycle max. This graph is made up of over 4000 individual daily readings of every group since May 2011.

 

 

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
68 manual -- 56

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2055 5305 (6934) 78% (75%)
2056 4683 (5933) 58% (62%)
2057 2300 (2352) 56% (56%)
2060 4872 (4787) 61% (60%)
2061 2061 (1586) 55% (53%)
2063 2688 68%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
166.7 (162.7) 165.1 (161.8) 2014/05/14 08:00

Six regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. The northern hemisphere is a making a return or sorts this month.

The Group Darkness graph is updated and shows no drop off of magnetic strength over SC24 cycle max. This graph is made up of over 4000 individual daily readings of every group since May 2011.

 

 

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
78 Locarno 92 55

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2055 6934 (8536) 75% (75%)
2056 5933 (7657) 62% (59%)
2057 2352 (2536) 56% (55%)
2060 4787 (4480) 60% (61%)
2061 1586 (1131) 53% (52%)
2062 747 (1332) 64% (67%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
162.7 (166.3) 161.8 (164.4) 2014/05/13 08:00

Six regions are recorded with the overall area increasing slightly. Some fresh activity that will put upward pressure on the monthly average for the next few days. Locarno again displaying dubious splitting of groups..

The Group Darkness graph is updated and shows no drop off of magnetic strength over SC24 cycle max. This graph is made up of over 4000 individual daily readings of every group since May 2011.

 

 

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
79 Locarnol 106 53

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2055 8536 (10364) 75% (76%)
2056 7657 (9240) 59% (67%)
2057 2536 (2496) 55% (60%)
2060 4480 (724) 61% (50%)
2061 1131 52%
2062 1332 67%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
166.3 (167.7) 164.4 (163.2) 2014/05/12 08:00

Four regions are recorded with the overall area staying about the same. Region 2058 fails the 24 hr rule and is removed from the record. Apologies for yesterdays partial update. The monthly average continues to fall.

The Group Darkness graph is updated and shows no drop off of magnetic strength over SC24 cycle max. This graph is made up of over 4000 individual daily readings of every group since May 2011.

 

 

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
45 Manual -- 51

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2055 10364 (11141) 76% (75%)
2056 9240 (9087) 67% (67%)
2057 2496 (2369) 60% (59%)
2060 724 50%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
167.7 (155.1) 163.2 (171.4) 2014/05/11 08:00

Four Three regions are recorded with the overall area staying about the same. SC 24 cycle conditions (once adjusted) continue to be around the 50 SSN of the Dalton Minimum cycle 5. EUV flux on the move, but overall during this cycle is very low.

The Group Darkness graph is updated and shows no drop off of magnetic strength over SC24 cycle max. This graph is made up of over 4000 individual daily readings of every group since May 2011.

 

 

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
39 Locarno 86 52

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2055 11141 (11241) 75% (72%)
2056 9087 (8838) 67% (67%)
2057 2496 (1874) 59% (59%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
155.1 (155.2) 171.4 (157.2) 2014/05/10 08:00

Five regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. Region 2054 also not passing the 24 hour rule and is removed from the record. Locarno counting double of the LSC today with them going crazy on specks and splitting groups. Darkness strength continues to climb.

The Group Darkness graph is updated and shows no drop off of magnetic strength over SC24 cycle max. This graph is made up of over 4000 individual daily readings of every group since May 2011.

 

 

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
52 Locarno 98 53

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2049 717 (1870) 58% (70%)
2055 11241 (10064) 72% (75%)
2056 8838 (6481) 67% (68%)
2057 1874 (1317) 59% (53%)
2058 721 (351) 58% (73%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
150.8 (150.8) 157.2 (155.6) 2014/05/09 08:00

Five regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. Region 2054 also not passing the 24 hour rule and is removed from the record. Locarno counting double of the LSC today with them going crazy on specks and splitting groups. Darkness strength continues to climb.

The Group Darkness graph is updated and shows no drop off of magnetic strength over SC24 cycle max. This graph is made up of over 4000 individual daily readings of every group since May 2011.

 

 

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
52 Locarno 103 53

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2049 1870 (2723) 70% (70%)
2055 10064 (7083) 75% (70%)
2056 6481 (3775) 68% (65%)
2057 1317 (679) 53% (56%)
2058 351 73%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
150.8 (148.6) 155.6 (153.8) 2014/05/08 08:00

Five Four regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. Region 2053 not passing the 24 hour rule and is removed from the record.

The Group Darkness graph is updated and shows no drop off of magnetic strength over SC24 cycle max. This graph is made up of over 4000 individual daily readings of every group since May 2011.

 

 

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
41 Manual -- 53

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2049 2723 (4058) 70% (66%)
2055 7083 (3892) 70% (67%)
2056 3775 (1330) 65% (63%)
2057 679 56%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
148.6 (141.3) 153.8 (146.8) 2014/05/07 08:00

Five Four regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. Region 2053 making a return not passing the 24 hour rule.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
45 Manual -- 55

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2049 4058 (6153) 66% (69%)
2047 690 (1567) 41% (45%)
2055 3892 (1392) 67% (60%)
2056 1330 63%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
141.3 (141.5) 146.8 (149.0) 2014/05/06 08:00

Five regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. F10.7 flux back on the rise, but Stereo Behind looking quiet.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
61 Locarno 79 58

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2049 6153 (7391) 69% (63%)
2047 1567 (3085) 45% (62%)
2051 1861 (3826) 62% (60%)
2052 810 (1459) 70% (52%)
2055 1392 60%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
141.5 (133.7) 149.0 (145.9) 2014/05/05 08:00

Five regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing substantially. The live image showing multiple regions but overall activity appears to be declining.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
63 Manual -- 57

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2049 7391 (9274) 63% (59%)
2047 3085 (5837) 62% (61%)
2050 390 (549) 76% (59%)
2051 3826 (6293) 60% (71%)
2052 1459 (1594) 52% (62%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
133.7 (134.8) 145.9 (143.0) 2014/05/04 08:00

Five regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. F10 and E10.7 flux declining..magnetic strength not waning as expected by some, cycle max or all kinds still shows a rise at cycle max.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
66 Manual -- 55

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2049 9274 (9708) 59% (60%)
2047 5837 (8838) 61% (62%)
2050 549 (704) 59% (61%)
2051 6293 (2575) 71% (73%)
2052 1594 62%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
134.8 (137.7) 143.0 (147.0) 2014/05/03 08:00

Four regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. Solar max of the grand minima kind continues to chugg along.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
57 Manual -- 49

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2049 9708 (9450) 60% (62%)
2047 8838 (3862) 62% (60%)
2050 704 (749) 61% (60%)
2051 2575 73%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
137.6 (127.7) 147.0 (143.3) 2014/05/02 08:00

Three regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. Some further activity expected over the next week.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
41 Manual -- 41

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2049 9450 (8024) 62% (60%)
2047 3862 (2871) 60% (65%)
2050 749 (675) 60% (60%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
127.7 (125.5) 143.3 (142.3) 2014/05/01 08:00

 

APRIL NEWS

Five regions are recorded with the overall area increasing, another rare day where the Locarno count is the same as the LSC. The LSC monthly mean SSN for April coming in at 53.53.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
59 Locarno 59 53.53

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2045 457 (1094) 70% (49%)
2049 8024 (5234) 60% (57%)
2047 2871 (1510) 65% (76%)
2048 428 (825) 48% (62%)
2050 675 (492) 60% (63%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
125.5 (121.8) 142.3 (141.7) 2014/04/30 08:00

Five regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. Some new counting groups that will keep the average flat.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
53 Manual -- 53

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2045 1094 (1749) 49% (55%)
2049 5234 (2969) 57% (51%)
2047 1510 76%
2048 825 62%
2050 492 63%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
121.8 (122.5) 141.7 (143.6) 2014/04/29 08:00

Two regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. Region 2048 has failed the 24 hour rule and is removed from the record...but this region is likely to have another go tomorrow.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
19 Manual -- 53

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2045 1749 (2183) 55% (53%)
2049 2969 (690) 51% (41%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
122.5 (119.6) 143.6 (140.4) 2014/04/28 08:00

Four Three regions are recorded with the overall area increasing slightly. F10.7 flux is the lowest it has been for several months.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
25 Manual -- 55

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2042 851 (1806) 55% (57%)
2045 2183 (2305) 53% (62%)
2049 690 41%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
119.6 (122.3) 140.4 (142.8) 2014/04/27 08:00

Two regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. The live image is showing some new activity but perhaps the near outlook is still weak?

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
17 Manual -- 56

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2042 1806 (2647) 57% (62%)
2045 2305 (2251) 62% (60%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
122.3 (126.2) 142.8 (143.9) 2014/04/26 08:00

Two regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. The moving average is dropping fast along with F10.7 flux..

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
19 Locarno 42 57

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2042 2647 (3241) 62% (69%)
2045 2251 (2438) 60% (54%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
126.2 (131.6) 143.9 (146.2) 2014/04/25 08:00

Three regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. A lull looks to be settling in.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
25 Locarno 44 59

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2038 760 (2014) 62% (57%)
2042 3241 (3588) 69% (71%)
2045 2438 (2024) 54% (58%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
131.6 (137.6) 146.2 (148.2) 2014/04/24 08:00

Four regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. The moving average is now moving in a sub 60 direction.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
46 Locarno 66 60

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2035 2240 (3143) 60% (64%)
2038 2014 (2334) 57% (67%)
2042 3588 (3829) 71% (68%)
2045 2024 (1018) 58% (59%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
137.6 (146.3) 148.2 (153.5) 2014/04/23 08:00

Four regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. F10.7 & E10.7 flux taking a hit today with an eary calm perhaps about to settle in? The SIDC pilot station Locarno coming in with a very high count made up mainly from specks and the splitting of region 2035 into 3.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
58 Locarno 95 61

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2035 3143 (3359) 64% (58%)
2038 2334 (1516) 67% (66%)
2042 3829 (3808) 68% (67%)
2045 1018 (510) 59% (62%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
146.3 (160.4) 153.5 (163.5) 2014/04/22 08:00

Six regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. Some downward pressure on the monthly moving average could begin tomorrow.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
70 Manual -- 61

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2034 2172 (4234) 52% (62%)
2035 3359 (4396) 58% (60%)
2036 820 (2575) 53% (57%)
2038 1516 (1910) 66% (59%)
2042 3808 (3750) 67% (72%)
2045 510 62%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
160.4 (164.1) 163.5 (163.7) 2014/04/21 08:00

Five regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. Solar activity continuing to slide slowly, the current activity is unusual with both hemispheres firing.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
72 Manual -- 61

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2034 4234 (6098) 62% (60%)
2035 4396 (6234) 60% (63%)
2036 2575 (5093) 57% (62%)
2038 1910 (2192) 59% (66%)
2042 3750 (3826) 72% (61%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
164.1 (170.8) 163.7 (168.0) 2014/04/20 08:00

Eight regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. Some solar rotation should see some further weakening.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
93 Manual -- 60

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2032 867 (1763) 53% (59%)
2033 809 (1264) 53% (56%)
2034 6098 (9078) 60% (64%)
2035 6234 (7857) 63% (63%)
2036 5093 (6588) 62% (63%)
2037 945 (1848) 49% (52%)
2038 2192 (1684) 66% (64%)
2042 3826 (2934) 61% (57%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
170.8 (173.7) 168.0 (167.0) 2014/04/19 08:00

Eight regions are recorded with the overall area increasing slightly. F10.7 flux beginning to fall as the monthly average continues to rise slowly.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
101 Manual -- 58

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2032 1763 (2429) 59% (66%)
2033 1264 (1684) 56% (59%)
2034 9078 (8162) 64% (66%)
2035 7857 (4414) 63% (64%)
2036 6588 (9151) 63% (60%)
2037 1848 (2691) 52% (64%)
2038 1684 (770) 64% (54%)
2042 2934 (1785) 57% (52%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
173.7 (180.3) 167.0 (170.4) 2014/04/18 08:00

Eight regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. Some signs of the current activity waning...

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
100 Manual -- 56

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2032 2429 (3047) 66% (72%)
2033 1684 (2152) 59% (63%)
2034 8162 (4953) 66% (62%)
2035 4414 (6177) 64% (63%)
2036 9151 (11593) 60% (63%)
2037 2691 (2963) 64% (61%)
2038 770 (469) 54% (56%)
2042 1785 52%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
180.3 (185.2) 170.4 (175.9) 2014/04/17 08:00

Seven regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. Cycle max continues to chugg along, with F10.7 and E10.7 flux taking a jump.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
100 Locarno 141 53

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2032 3047 (3672) 72% (75%)
2033 2152 (2476) 63% (61%)
2034 4953 (5437) 62% (63%)
2035 6177 (3930) 63% (61%)
2036 11593 (9882) 63% (67%)
2037 2963 (827) 61% (69%)
2038 469 56%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
185.2 (163.0) 175.9 (164.2) 2014/04/16 08:00

Six regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. There has been no lack of darkness or magnetic strength lately...I will update the long term darkness graph soon.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
75 Manual -- 50

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2032 3672 (3781) 75% (72%)
2033 2476 (2532) 61% (66%)
2034 5437 (4899) 63% (66%)
2035 3930 (3678) 61% (63%)
2036 9882 (2081) 67% (72%)
2037 827 (724) 69% (76%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
163.0 (151.2) 164.2 (157.6) 2014/04/15 08:00

Six regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. Some new activity that should keep the moving average on the upslope for the next week.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
72 Locarno 79 48

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2032 3781 (3864) 72% (71%)
2033 2532 (2559) 66% (61%)
2034 4899 (4235) 66% (64%)
2035 3678 (2450) 63% (57%)
2036 2081 72%
2037 724 76%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
151.2 (137.9) 157.6 (148.6) 2014/04/14 08:00

Four regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. The moving average still on the decline but may turn around tomorrow. Over at WUWT Svalgaard & Eschenbach are attempting to discredit the 10Be solar proxy record. This of course would have nothing to do with the fact that the 10Be record owners are now firmly in the planetary theory camp. Watts and his crew are quickly aligning themselves with the ignorant of the past that ignored new and emerging science. The 14C record very closely aligns with the 10Be record, showing that over the long term two distinct datasets can verify each other. Some continue to make the mistake that solar output should align closely with the temperature record....solar is but one driver and will never align exactly with temperature.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
40 Manual -- 46

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2032 3864 (3795) 71% (74%)
2033 2559 (2393) 61% (63%)
2034 4235 (3379) 64% (72%)
2035 2450 (1446) 57% (61%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
137.9 (136.5) 148.6 (148.1) 2014/04/13 08:00

Five regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. F10.7 flux once again on the decline.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
47 Locarno 63 47

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2027 443 (1093) 48% (62%)
2032 3795 (3278) 74% (75%)
2033 2393 (2279) 63% (62%)
2034 3379 (1200) 72 (64%)
2035 1446 61%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
136.5 (138.2) 148.1 (150.1) 2014/04/12 08:00

Four regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. Region 2032 has been split by NOAA so we will run with it, the moving average continues to fall.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
38 Manual -- 47

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2027 1093 (1906) 62% (69%)
2032 3278 (4476) 75% (66%)
2033 2279 62%
2034 1200 64%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
138.2 (137.3) 150.1 (150.9) 2014/04/11 08:00

Two regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. There is not a lot in the barrel right now, although a tick up in the F10.7 suggests otherwise. The magnetic strength of the solar poles is beginning to be a big story, both poles are around neutral, this may be a common occurrence once the Sun experiences an AM excursion like it did during 2010. The data is being recorded...expect a major announcement from NASA in the not too distant future.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
21 Manual -- 48

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2027 1906 (2735) 69% (71%)
2032 4476 (3202) 66% (57%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
137.3 (131.0) 150.9 (147.8) 2014/04/10 08:00

Two regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. A big drop off in activity has occurred in the last 24 hours, which may be a sign of things to come. The moving average will now be heading to sub 50. Region 2031 was removed from yesterdays record.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
22 Manual -- 51

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2027 2735 (3560) 71% (75%)
2032 3202 (1414) 57% (53%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
131.0 (132.4) 147.8 (151.1) 2014/04/09 08:00

Five Four regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing slightly. F10.7 flux continuing to fall. UPDATE: Region 2031 failing the 24 hour rule, record adjusted.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
44 Manual -- 54

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2026 1433 (1805) 65% (43%)
2027 3560 (4019) 75% (75%)
2030 691 (1152) 70% (85%)
2032 1414 53%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
132.4 (140.2) 151.1 (155.5) 2014/04/08 08:00

Three regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. The moving average continuing to head down, April is not looking strong at present.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
29 Manual -- 56

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2026 1805 (3213) 43% (59%)
2027 4019 (4069) 75% (74%)
2030 1152 (1533) 85% (63%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
140.2 (141.2) 155.5 (152.8) 2014/04/07 08:00

Five regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. The moving average now heading down.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
55 Manual -- 60

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2021 1662 (4796) 59% (54%)
2026 3213 (5676) 59% (60%)
2027 4069 (4166) 74% (71%)
2029 554 (1253) 60% (61%)
2030 1533 (2180) 63% (58%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
141.2 (142.3) 152.8 (153.4) 2014/04/06 08:00

Five regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. Locarno's count today is not representative of the Sun's activity, many specks getting a raw score of 11. Another good example of the modern method not working during times of grand minimum.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
79 Locarno 127 59

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2021 7068 (7357) 56% (60%)
2026 7728 (5530) 58% (56%)
2027 3751 (3273) 71% (72%)
2029 1393 (2008) 63% (64%)
2030 1553 (955) 62% (66%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
157.0 (153.0) 161.6 (160.4) 2014/04/04 08:00

Five regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. F10.7 and E10.7 flux moving down.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
60 Manual -- 52

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2021 7357 (8774) 60% (60%)
2026 5530 (3228) 56% (58%)
2027 3273 (2636) 72% (68%)
2029 2008 64%
2030 955 66%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
153.0 (154.6) 160.4 (161.5) 2014/04/03 08:00

Four regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. Most indicators on a slow rise.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
46 Manual 64 48

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2021 8774 (8103) 60% (67%)
2022 454 (466) 60% (66%)
2026 3228 (2525) 58% (56%)
2027 2636 (1748) 68% (71%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
154.6 (153.1) 161.5 (160.8) 2014/04/02 08:00

Four regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. Some rise in activity but overall still weak.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
51 Locarno 64 51

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2021 8103 (4526) 67% (63%)
2022 466 (437) 66% (60%)
2026 2525 (628) 56% (64%)
2027 1748 (735) 71% (64%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
153.1 (152.1) 160.8 (162.3) 2014/04/01 08:00

MARCH NEWS

Five regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. March saw a 30% drop in activity over last month with the LSC coming in at 45.61.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
55 Manual -- 45.61

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2014 486 (2081) 45% (57%)
2021 4526 (1076) 63% (68%)
2022 437 (482) 60% (59%)
2026 628 64%
2027 735 64%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
152.1 (148.1) 162.3 (162.2)  

Four regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. Stereo Behind is continuing to look weak.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
41 Manual -- 45

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2014 2081 (3307) 57% (59%)
2017 1452 (2796) 67% (62%)
2021 1076 (1066) 68% (65%)
2022 482 59%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
148.1 (142.3) 162.2 (161.0) 2014/03/30 08:00

Three regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. The F10.7 flux levels continue to fall.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine...still waiting here for tallbloke from the talkshop to review my paper.....

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
37 Locarno 95 45

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2014 3307 (4255) 59% (68%)
2017 2796 (2839) 62% (64%)
2021 1066 65%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
142.3 (145.9) 161.0 (163.1) 2014/03/29 08:00

Two regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. The moving average is now dropping, March will see a value in the mid 40"s. The LSC value today is around 1/4 of the SIDC....a joke really. Region 2018 failed the 24 hour rule and was removed from the record.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine...will tallbloke from the talkshop also review my paper?

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
24 Locarno 96 46

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2014 4255 (5034) 68% (59%)
2017 2839 (2474) 64% (57%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
145.9 (144.2) 163.1 (159.1) 2014/03/28 08:45

Four Three regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. The moving average holding steady, a drop from last month is expected. 

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine...will tallbloke from the talkshop also review my paper?

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
37 Locarno 86 47

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2010 973 (1729) 60% (58%)
2014 5034 (6440) 59% (63%)
2017 2474 (2680) 57% (59%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
144.2 (152.5) 159.6 (165.1) 2014/03/27 08:45

Three regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. General activity continues on the downward slope, and the "hotspot" is now pronounced dead..

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine...will tallbloke from the talkshop also review my paper? 

A new article titled "Calibrating the Dendrochronology and Carbon Dating Record via Astronomical Alignments" is posted HERE and is the basis of my next paper. I am expecting some controversy....

The shutdown in the north has had consequences, the north pole is looking to head back towards the neutral zone instead of building strength like other cycles.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
40 Manual -- 47

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2010 1729 (3994) 58% (61%)
2014 6440 (6264) 63% (62%)
2017 2680 (2754) 59% (60%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
152.5 (152.0) 165.1 (162.2) 2014/03/26 08:45

Four regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. General activity on the downward slope.

A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine...will tallbloke from the talkshop also review my paper? 

A new article titled "Calibrating the Dendrochronology and Carbon Dating Record via Astronomical Alignments" is posted HERE and is the basis of my next paper. I am expecting some controversy....

The shutdown in the north has had consequences, the north pole is looking to head back towards the neutral zone instead of building strength like other cycles.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
53 Manual -- 47

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2010 3994 (5425) 61% (63%)
2014 6264 (6308) 62%(65%)
2015 648 (1092) 61% (74%)
2017 2754 (1733) 60% (53%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
152.0 (157.7) 162.2 (166.9) 2014/03/25 08:45

Five regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. Region 2014 being the major mover.

Today a new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has already refused to review this new paper along with mine...will tallbloke from the talkshop do the same? Strange bed fellows perhaps?

It seems the McCracken et al and Sharp team are all out on their own.

A new article titled "Calibrating the Dendrochronology and Carbon Dating Record via Astronomical Alignments" is posted HERE and is the basis of my next paper. I am expecting some controversy....

The shutdown in the north has had consequences, the north pole is looking to head back towards the neutral zone instead of building strength like other cycles.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
59 Manual -- 47

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2005 763 (1920) 63% (74%)
2010 5425 (4469) 63% (63%)
2014 6308 (4023) 65%(61%)
2015 1092 (1756) 74% (72%)
2017 1733 (1068) 53% (52%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
157.7 (156.0) 166.9 (166.3) 2014/03/24 08:45

Seven regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. The "hotspot" that provided a lot of the past 3 months higher figures on this rotation looks to be benign?

A new article titled "Calibrating the Dendrochronology and Carbon Dating Record via Astronomical Alignments" is posted HERE and is the basis of my next paper. I am expecting some controversy....

The shutdown in the north has had consequences, the north pole is looking to head back towards the neutral zone instead of building strength like other cycles.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
79 Manual -- 46

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2005 1920 (3103) 74% (71%)
2010 4469 (3998) 63% (57%)
2011 518 (2454) 47% (55%)
2013 519 (675) 61% (51%)
2014 4023 (3057) 61%(55%)
2015 1756 (1664) 72% (74%)
2017 1068 52%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
156.0 (153.8) 166.3 (166.0) 2014/03/23 08:45

Six regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. Some renewed activity that has pushed the moving average up 1 point.

A new article titled "Calibrating the Dendrochronology and Carbon Dating Record via Astronomical Alignments" is posted HERE and is the basis of my next paper. I am expecting some controversy....

The shutdown in the north has had consequences, the north pole is looking to head back towards the neutral zone instead of building strength like other cycles.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
65 Manual -- 45

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2005 3103 (3944) 71% (77%)
2010 3998 (3107) 57% (57%)
2011 2454 (4151) 55% (65%)
2013 675 (627) 51% (56%)
2014 3057 (2069) 55%(58%)
2015 1664 74%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
153.8 (151.4) 166.0 (165.4) 2014/03/22 08:45

Five regions are recorded with the overall area staying about the same. Region 2004 fails to pass the 24 hour rule and is removed from the record. The SIDC count today is nearly twice that of the LSC, many specks and unbelievable group splitting the main culprit.

A new article titled "Calibrating the Dendrochronology and Carbon Dating Record via Astronomical Alignments" is posted HERE and is the basis of my next paper. I am expecting some controversy....

The shutdown in the north has had consequences, the north pole is looking to head back towards the neutral zone instead of building strength like other cycles.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
53 Locarno 99 44

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2005 3944 (4774) 77% (75%)
2010 3107(3031) 57% (54%)
2011 4151 (3550) 65% (72%)
2013 627 (557) 56% (57%)
2014 2069 (1313) 58%(58%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
151.4 (150.1) 165.4 (167.8) 2014/03/21 08:45

Six Five regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. Region 2004 will be under pressure tomorrow to pass the 24 hour rule.

A new article titled "Calibrating the Dendrochronology and Carbon Dating Record via Astronomical Alignments" is posted HERE and is the basis of my next paper. I am expecting some controversy....

The shutdown in the north has had consequences, the north pole is looking to head back towards the neutral zone instead of building strength like other cycles.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
58 Manual -- 44

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2005 4774 (5062) 75% (79%)
2010 3031(2152) 54% (66%)
2011 3550 (1608) 72% (66%)
2013 557 (408) 57% (53%)
2014 1313 58%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
150.1 (147.9) 167.8 (167.4) 2014/03/20 08:45

Four regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. More specks for the official counters to record today.

A new article titled "Calibrating the Dendrochronology and Carbon Dating Record via Astronomical Alignments" is posted HERE and is the basis of my next paper. I am expecting some controversy....

The shutdown in the north has had consequences, the north pole is looking to head back towards the neutral zone instead of building strength like other cycles.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
41 Manual -- 43

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2005 5062 (5742) 79% (75%)
2010 2152 66%
2011 1608 66%
2013 408 53%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
147.9 (137.0) 167.4 (161.9) 2014/03/19 08:45

Two regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. Plenty of specks bumping up the official record.

A new article titled "Calibrating the Dendrochronology and Carbon Dating Record via Astronomical Alignments" is posted HERE and is the basis of my next paper. I am expecting some controversy....

The shutdown in the north has had consequences, the north pole is looking to head back towards the neutral zone instead of building strength like other cycles.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
22 Manual -- 43

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2002 927 (3103) 52% (59%)
2005 5742 (5768) 75% (78%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
137.0 (135.1) 161.9 (158.5) 2014/03/18 08:45

Two regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. F10.7 flux holding steady as the previous "hotspot" along with other previous regions loom on the backside.

A new article titled "Calibrating the Dendrochronology and Carbon Dating Record via Astronomical Alignments" is posted HERE and is the basis of my next paper. I am expecting some controversy....

The shutdown in the north has had consequences, the north pole is looking to head back towards the neutral zone instead of building strength like other cycles.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
25 Manual -- 44

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2002 3103 (4032) 59% (56%)
2005 5768 (5491) 78% (74%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
135.1 (134.2) 158.5 (158.4) 2014/03/17 08:45

Two regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. Region 2006 fails the 24 hour rule and is removed from the record as the monthly average continues its fall along with other metrics.

A new article titled "Calibrating the Dendrochronology and Carbon Dating Record via Astronomical Alignments" is posted HERE and is the basis of my next paper. I am expecting some controversy....

The shutdown in the north has had consequences, the north pole is looking to head back towards the neutral zone instead of building strength like other cycles.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
25 Manual -- 45

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2002 4032 (6235) 56% (57%)
2005 5491 (4653) 74% (78%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
134.2 (137.5) 158.4 (161.4) 2014/03/16 08:45

Four Three regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. This month so far is noticably more subdued that the previous few months.

A new article titled "Calibrating the Dendrochronology and Carbon Dating Record via Astronomical Alignments" is posted HERE and is the basis of my next paper. I am expecting some controversy....

The shutdown in the north has had consequences, the north pole is looking to head back towards the neutral zone instead of building strength like other cycles.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
34 Locarno 58 47

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2002 6235 (7194) 57% (61%)
2003 1818 (2436) 62% (59%)
2005 4653 (3623) 78% (76%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
137.5 (142.1) 161.4 (160.6) 2014/03/15 08:45

Three regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. Solar activity continuing to slide.

A new article titled "Calibrating the Dendrochronology and Carbon Dating Record via Astronomical Alignments" is posted HERE and is the basis of my next paper. I am expecting some controversy....

The shutdown in the north has had consequences, the north pole is looking to head back towards the neutral zone instead of building strength like other cycles.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
46 Locarno 74 48

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2002 7194 (8715) 61 (64%)
2003 2436 (3598) 59% (65%)
2005 3623 (2346) 76% (80%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
142.1 (145.9) 160.6 (163.9) 2014/03/14 08:45

Three regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. Region 2005 showing very strong magnetic strength, I suspect we will still have sunspots during 2015.

A new article titled "Calibrating the Dendrochronology and Carbon Dating Record via Astronomical Alignments" is posted HERE and is the basis of my next paper. I am expecting some controversy....

The shutdown in the north has had consequences, the north pole is looking to head back towards the neutral zone instead of building strength like other cycles.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
55 Locarno 93 48

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
2002 8715 (10343) 64 (62%)
2003 3598 (2861) 65% (66%)
2005 2346 (993) 80% (71%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
145.9 (145.8) 163.9 (159.5) 2014/03/13 08:45

Five regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. F10.7 and E10.7 flux falling sharply after yesterdays sudden rise.

A new article titled "Calibrating the Dendrochronology and Carbon Dating Record via Astronomical Alignments" is posted HERE and is the basis of my next paper. I am expecting some controversy....

The shutdown in the north has had consequences, the north pole is looking to head back towards the neutral zone instead of building strength like other cycles.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
81 Locarno 103 47

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
1998 802 (1019) 59% (64%)
1996 1548 (3859) 50% (59%)
2002 10343 (7491) 62 (64%)
2003 2861 66%
2005 993 71%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
145.8 (162.5) 159.5 (171.9) 2014/03/12 08:45

Three regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. F10.7 and E10.7 flux on the rise.

A new article titled "Calibrating the Dendrochronology and Carbon Dating Record via Astronomical Alignments" is posted HERE and is the basis of my next paper. I am expecting some controversy....

The shutdown in the north has had consequences, the north pole is looking to head back towards the neutral zone instead of building strength like other cycles.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
50 Manual -- 44

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
1998 1019 (1381) 64% (61%)
1996 3859 (2617) 56% (63%)
2002 7491 (3553) 64 (64%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
162.5 (149.5) 171.9 (164.0) 2014/03/11 08:45

Three regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. Activity on the increase again.

A new article titled "Calibrating the Dendrochronology and Carbon Dating Record via Astronomical Alignments" is posted HERE and is the basis of my next paper. I am expecting some controversy....

The shutdown in the north has had consequences, the north pole is looking to head back towards the neutral zone instead of building strength like other cycles.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
42 Manual -- 43

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
1998 1381 (1485) 61% (63%)
1996 2617 (2013) 63% (68%)
2002 3553 64%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
149.5 (143.8) 164.0 (163.0) 2014/03/10 08:45

Two regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. Region 1996 is back for another go.

A new article titled "Calibrating the Dendrochronology and Carbon Dating Record via Astronomical Alignments" is posted HERE and is the basis of my next paper. I am expecting some controversy....

The shutdown in the north has had consequences, the north pole is looking to head back towards the neutral zone instead of building strength like other cycles.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
27 Manual -- 44

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
1998 1485 (1398) 63% (59%)
1996 2013 68%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
143.8 (139.5) 163.0 (163.5) 2014/03/09 08:45

Two regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. New region 1996 does not pass the 24 hour rule and is removed from the record, it may make another appearance tomorrow. The monthly average dropping quickly, have we seen the peak of the southern hemisphere?

A new article titled "Calibrating the Dendrochronology and Carbon Dating Record via Astronomical Alignments" is posted HERE and is the basis of my next paper. I am expecting some controversy....

The shutdown in the north has had consequences, the north pole is looking to head back towards the neutral zone instead of building strength like other cycles.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
17 Locarno 64 44

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
1990 946 (1995) 44% (58%)
1998 1398 (1371) 59% (57%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
139.5 (146.0) 163.5 (166.0) 2014/03/08 08:45

Three  regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing slightly. New region 1996 may not pass the 24 hour rule tomorrow.

A new article titled "Calibrating the Dendrochronology and Carbon Dating Record via Astronomical Alignments" is posted HERE and is the basis of my next paper. I am expecting some controversy....

The shutdown in the north has had consequences, the north pole is looking to head back towards the neutral zone instead of building strength like other cycles.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
30 Locarno 92 48

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
1990 1995 (3174) 58% (66%)
1991 870 (2294) 58% (54%)
1998 1371 (804) 57% (62%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
146.0 (146.5) 166.0 (168.2) 2014/03/07 08:45

Three regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. The LSC monthly moving average is looking to go below 50.

A new article titled "Calibrating the Dendrochronology and Carbon Dating Record via Astronomical Alignments" is posted HERE and is the basis of my next paper. I am expecting some controversy....

The shutdown in the north has had consequences, the north pole is looking to head back towards the neutral zone instead of building strength like other cycles.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
36 Locarno 79 51

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
1990 3174 (3696) 66% (66%)
1991 2294 (4853) 54% (59%)
1998 804 (426) 62% (64%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
146.5 (146.7) 168.2 (165.6) 2014/03/06 08:45

Three regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. The LSC count today is around 1/3 of the SIDC, days like today heavily skew the record and do not tell the correct statistics when comparing cycles. The live satellite pics are looking very weak...

A new article titled "Calibrating the Dendrochronology and Carbon Dating Record via Astronomical Alignments" is posted HERE and is the basis of my next paper. I am expecting some controversy....

The shutdown in the north has had consequences, the north pole is looking to head back towards the neutral zone instead of building strength like other cycles.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
38 Locarno 97 54

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
1990 3696 (4443) 66% (65%)
1991 4853 (6761) 59% (63%)
1998 426 64%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
146.7 (155.4) 165.6 (165.6) 2014/03/05 08:45

Four regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing. Region 1989 fails the 24 hour rule and is removed from the record. Most indicators on the way down.

A new article titled "Calibrating the Dendrochronology and Carbon Dating Record via Astronomical Alignments" is posted HERE and is the basis of my next paper. I am expecting some controversy....

The shutdown in the north has had consequences, the north pole is looking to head back towards the neutral zone instead of building strength like other cycles.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
50 Locarno 90 59

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
1987 874 (1271) 61% (63%)
1990 4443 (4459) 65% (60%)
1991 6761 (9469) 63% (61%)
1994 345 (571) 48% (53%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
155.4 (158.3) 165.6 (164.0) 2014/03/04 08:45

Five Four regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing slightly. Current activity beginning to weaken. The next few months will be important.

A new article titled "Calibrating the Dendrochronology and Carbon Dating Record via Astronomical Alignments" is posted HERE and is the basis of my next paper. I am expecting some controversy....

The shutdown in the north has had consequences, the north pole is looking to head back towards the neutral zone instead of building strength like other cycles.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
48 Manual -- 62

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
1987 1271 (1928) 63% (59%)
1990 4459 (5040) 60% (70%)
1991 9469 (8990) 61% (62%)
1994 571 (632) 53% (59%)
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
158.3 (158.5) 164.0 (167.6) 2014/03/03 08:30

Five regions are recorded with the overall area increasing slightly. February saw the SIDC move further away from the LSC mainly due to the increased speck ratio (0.65). The increase of the speck ratio and the double appearance of the "hotspot" perhaps inflating the February figure. The F10.7 flux monthly value showing a small increase over last month.

A new article titled "Calibrating the Dendrochronology and Carbon Dating Record via Astronomical Alignments" is posted HERE and is the basis of my next paper. I am expecting some controversy....

The shutdown in the north has had consequences, the north pole is looking to head back towards the neutral zone instead of building strength like other cycles.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
59 Manual -- 68

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
1987 1928 (2888) 59% (64%)
1990 5040 (4803) 70% (69%)
1991 8990 (6789) 62% (59%)
1993 1221 (1721) 65% (67%)
1994 632 59%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
158.5 (161.6) 167.6 (167.6) 2014/03/02 08:30

Seven regions are recorded with the overall area decreasing slightly.

A new article titled "Calibrating the Dendrochronology and Carbon Dating Record via Astronomical Alignments" is posted HERE and is the basis of my next paper. I am expecting some controversy....

The shutdown in the north has had consequences, the north pole is looking to head back towards the neutral zone instead of building strength like other cycles.

I am ramping up the twitter & facebook feeds that will include solar and climate news/graphs etc...click on the follow button near the top of this page or the left hand menu to be included.

LSC Daily Draw Ref. SIDC LSC Mov Avg.
78 Manual -- 78

SDO Sunspot

 
NOAA Region #   Pixels Darkness
1987 2888 (3324) 64% (65%)
1990 4803 (4949) 69% (76%)
1991 6789 (5218) 59% (55%)
1992 370 (409) 77% (77%)
1988 1468 (2812) 51% (56%)
1995 910 (613) 58% (70%)
1993 1721 67%
F10.7  flux   E10.7 flux Date/Time UTC
161.6 (167.5) 167.6 (168.7) 2014/03/01 08:30

 

 

 

 

 

October 09 News

November 09 News

December 09 News

January 10 News

February 10 News

March 10 News

April 10 News

May 10 News

June 10 News

July 10 News

August 10 News

September 10 News

October 10 News

November 10 News

December 10 News

January 11 News

February 11 News

March 11 News

April 11 News

May 11 News

June 11 News

July 11 News

August 11 News

September 11 News

October 11 News

November 11 News

December 11 News

January 12 News

February 12 News

March 12 News

April 12 News

May 12 News

June 12 News

July 12 News

August 12 News

September 12 News

October 12 News

November 12 News

December 12 News

January 13 News

February 13 News

March 13 News

May 13 News

June 13 News

July13 News

August 13 News

September 13 News

October 13 News

November 13 News

December 13 News

January 14 News

February 14 News

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Previous Years Spotless Records.

SIDC 2009 spotless days - 261

Layman's 2009 spotless days - 314

Layman's spotless days June 2008 - June 2009 - 349

SIDC 2010 spotless days - 44

Layman's 2010 spotless days - 98

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

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

 

wolflay

This graph prepared by Robert shows how the Layman's count (blue) compares with the Wolf count and today's methods.

Comments

"Layman count"

Congratulations! I would suggest to all people to consider this method the official for counting sunspots. I´d rather call it the "free man count", the only count which reflects reality instead of the will of any "new age" scientist.

Layman's count

Just want to add my thanks to others for providing this service, including the description of how the count is generated. 

Science in the open, as it should be.

Verification of Solar Output Independent of Earth

Would it be possible to show monthly, yearly graphs of the average surface temperature of Mars?

Mars does not have atmospheric gases that trap heat like Earth; and it especially doesn't have a huge water moderator like our oceans.  It may be possible to find a more direct correlation between Sunspots and the Sun's output by comparing past Martian surface temperatures to Sunspots.

I don't know where or how to get the data, or if the data even exists for, say, 100 years.

Comments appreciated!

Dr . Lurtz

TSI

Interesting idea...but I suspect if that data was available for Mars it would only show small variances. The solar output is a lot more than just the heat output which varies little, it probably takes an ocean and atmosphere to appreciate the other factors that are produced by Sol. The size of the Heliosphere, strength of the solar wind and EUV and magnetic influences may turn out to be much bigger players than TSI.

Viewer Angle

Sometimes depending on the time of year the solar equator can appear not where you might assume. The attached image shows the latitude of what will be 1049 and as you can see it is still some distance from the equator but does show a different band of activity compared with Region 2. The preceding 1047 with its reverse polarity is interesting but perhaps is a result of a southern hemisphere that is experiencing some sort of turmoil (it is said that upto 3% of spots can be wrongly aligned in their polarity) I think any SC23 spots would be right on the equator.

The return of Region 2 will be interesting to observe, will the southern hemisphere continue its already weak state?regions

Thanks Geoff!

I also wanted to say I appreciate the layman's count.  I  wanted to ask if you were aware of "Brown Dwarf Affecting Pluto, We Are Binary System?"  http://lucianarchy.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=print&thread=7005

I figure if anyone would be aware of a Brown Dwarf changing the orbital paths of the planets it would be those following Landscheidt's work.  I certainly do not trust NASA or the US government to give us the straight dope on anything anymore!

 

Thanks

Binary System

If there is a brown dwarf on the outskirts of the solar system it would not be in concert with our Sun. A body with greater mass and distance than Jupiter orbiting the Sun would have an enormous impact on the solar orbit pattern about the SSB. At present the solar path is about where it should be when calculating the gravitation affects from the solar system bodies. Our studies have shown a small variation between solar/planet AM which could result in solar rotation variances, this work is precise and would very quickly show if a distant body had any influence. The planet orbit perturbations are also in line with the solar orbit suggesting no outside influence.

So maybe the brown dwarf theory is not founded, and I also am vigilant at accepting information from NASA sources... I appreciate your support.

Density of Solar Output

<p>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. &lt;i&gt;How does this work?&lt;/i&gt;</p>

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?

brown dwarf

Thanks for your quick response.  I thought this sounded like unsupported conjecture but it certainly was worth checking.

 

I notice you are about 1/3 of the way through cycle 24 and still tracking cycle 5 very nicely.  This latest funk with F10.7 nose diving again must have the CAGW pushers nearly frantic to get  a global CO2 bill passed.  Between the sun in a funk, a La Nina and a possible Katla volcano eruption, a very obvious "global cooling" maybe just around the corner.

spot was spotted

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!   

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.

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.

  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].

 

 

you past behavior...

you past behavior...

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

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 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/

 

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?

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].

 

 

 

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:

 

 

2010 1 2010.042 23.00 15.53

0.68


2010 2 2010.125 34.65 23.65

0.68


2010 3 2010.208 29.20 20.05

0.69


2010 4 2010.292 11.12 5.53

0.50


2010 5 2010.375 16.35 10.04

0.61


2010 6 2010.458 27.26 12.57

0.46


2010 7 2010.542 31.92 17.00

0.53


2010 8 2010.625 51.00 34.71

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.

This image is taken 6:00 UTC 27th May, which is the same time as the Catania drawing if I am not mistaken. There is no sign of any penumbra which could contribute to a spot count.

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? 

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.

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.

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

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.

Wolf scaled UP twice: in 1861

Wolf scaled UP twice:

in 1861 he doubled all pre-1800 numbers

in 1875 he bumped all pre-1849 numbers up by 25%

I am just saying...

 

I'm 99% sure that this solar

I'm 99% sure that this solar storm is coming.  Is it just me or has it seemed like there has been a greater frequency in solar flares over the last couple of years? I've been watching http://spaceweather.com/ over the last few years and I'm not a scientist, but I have noticed an increase in sunspots.  I also have satellite internet, so whenever there's a solar flare the signal gets disrupted and I get a headache along w/ it.  It could just be my ISP (internet providers in my area that I use in case you were wondering) but with the increase in reports of solar flares and articles like these I'm beginning to think that we really ARE in for a toasty treat in 2012 :/

Grand Minima still have spots

Thanks for the history, the importance of the small scope coming through. It looks obvious why the threshold was derived and now a valid reason for continuing Schwabe's method. It is interesting that the Wolf pocket scope is the same dimensions as Schwabe's, I wonder if he also copied the eyepiece design?. The mystery of the threshold size continues but it seems likely it must at least be a size viewable by the small scope.

The description of the sunspot record through SC5 cycle max sounds just like we will get this time around. To arrive at a SSN around 50 you need quite a bit of activity. Look at the activity and size of spots during the first 3 months of 2010 and yet we came no where near a SSN of 50. That activity would need a 3-4 fold increase to arrive at 50 SSN.

The Dalton Minimum just like the Landscheidt Minimum is a weak grand minimum and cant be compared with Maunder like performances.

Keller

Geoff Sharp says: September 13, 2010 at 6:25 am I think a lot of people would also disagree with you regarding your statements on lens quality. The quality once it is high enough doesn’t matter compared with the effect of seeing and observer experience [because there is a minimum size of about 1.5" to a spot or pore]. Perhaps the best way to demonstrate this is to simply compare the counts of the observers and instruments in question. Now, many people have difficulties following a reasoned arguments that has more than two pieces, so you will have to pay attention [I'll predict that I'll fail to get the point across, but lemme give it a try]. I don’t have Keller’s data for 2010 so I’ll use 2007 for which I have good coverage. Here is the situation:

1) Keller is using Wolf’s old, standard [and superb] telescope with the original optics that Wolf used to set his standard with in 1849-1861.

2) Keller was Waldmeier’s assistant [and actually made a lot of the observations of the Waldmeier part of the series] so the weighting and selection of what to count is identical to Waldmeier’s [which I take to be the standard rather than SIDC because of SIDC's undercount]. Lastly, Keller multiplies his sunspot number by 0.6 to bring it on Wolf’s scale [defined for 1849-1861].

3) Catania reports both spot and pores in each group and the Catania Relative Sunspot Number is then Rcatania = 10*Gc {at least one pore or spot} + {spots + pores}.

4) Waldmeier has always reported that Rzurich = 0.6 * Rcatania. So we can multiply Rcatania by 0.6 to bring it on the Wolf scale.

5) I surmise that Wolf simply did not count the pores, that is, a group was not counted if there were only pores in it. This means that Wolf’s group count Gw will usually be smaller than Catania’s, Gc. Now, Rwolf =k*[10*Gw +{spots}] with k=1

6) If I’m correct that optics is not an issues, then 0.6*Rcatania, Rwolf, and Rkeller should be ‘about’ equal. I say ‘about’, because the three numbers are based on a different number of days [because of occasional cloudy weather, etc] so we would expect some second order variation. Rkeller may for times be slightly larger because of the weighting of spots by size. This is what we get when we do the comparison: http://www.leif.org/research/Keller-Catania-Wolf.png .

As you can see, within the spread expected from missing data, the three counts are virtually identical, QED. The three numbers 9.9, 9.2, and 9.3 are the yearly average sunspot numbers for 2007 for the three ‘observers’. Again, not significantly different. BTW, SIDC has 7.5 for 2007 because of the undercount, i.e. SIDC is too low. http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-Seminar-14Sept.pdf

Re Keller

Can you give an example of how this rating system of Waldmeier's was applied to the standard count, and how and when it was used within the SIDC for continuance.

We need to see Keller's drawings for each day, esp with all the number manipulation going on.

In yesterdays SIDC conference you left out 2 points which greatly alter the impact of your presentation.

1. You did not mention the F10.7 Flux values are derived from mixing the 2 datasets. This is what gives the movement after 2001. Plot the Canadian record against the SSN and all is fine (not sure how many times this has been pointed out to you)

 

2. That the NOAA count (less the .6 factor) has tracked the SIDC counted quite closely since 1991. It averages .6.

 

Also I think you need to view the Sun through a Kellner lens and then try a modern lens for comparison.

 

  Can you give an example of

 

Can you give an example of how this rating system of Waldmeier's was applied to the standard count, and how and when it was used within the SIDC for continuance.

It is in my talk on slide 3. Perhaps I was assuming too much and should have provided a translation: "a speck is counted once, A larger one but still without penumbra {a pore} is given the statistical weight 2 [i.e. counted twice], a small ordinary spot 3, and a large one 5 [i.e. counted 5 times]".

This method is used by Waldmeier and by Keller, but not by SIDC [as far as they knew (!) as they get SSN from some 50 observers some of which may have used the weighting. After ~2000 they think none of the observers used Waldmeier's double, triple, etc counting any more. This is all being checked at the moment. They know that they are undercounting.

We need to see Keller's drawings for each day, esp with all the number manipulation going on.

No you don't. His values are what matters as for Wolf. And there is no manipulation going on. That there is, is just agenda-driven FUD. That NOAA and SIDC at times disagree is because the average time for the SIDC count is in the morning of the UT day, while for NOAA it is in the evening of the UT day. So a spot can be born or disappear during the day and only be seen by one. Simple as that, plus that the whole thing is subjective anyway, and different persons might easily differ a bit.

1. You did not mention the F10.7 Flux values are derived from mixing the 2 datasets. This is what gives the movement after 2001. Plot the Canadian record against the SSN and all is fine (not sure how many times this has been pointed out to you)

Slide 21 and my verbal presentation [and all my papers on this] made that clear. The two series agree to within a couple of percent, which is much smaller than the change in the relationship. It pays to do the math. Your analysis is flawed [plot is presented in a misleading way - e.g. lines too thick, perhaps in order to 'hide the decline']. Here is how to do it right:

First we plot the SSN versus the original Canadian F10.7. To make it easier to check by hand I'll work with yearly values. Here is what you get:

http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-vs-Canadian-F107.png

As you may be able to see is that the dark blue diamonds [1948-1990] form one population (which can be described by the formula given that explains more than 99% of the variation), while years later than that form another population [red diamonds and pink squares]. This second population has lower SSNs for same F10.7 flux. We can now calculate what the SSN should have been if the Sun has not changed its spots, as it were. We now form the ratio, r, between the observed SSN and the synthetic one calculated from the relationship, r = SSN(obs)/SSN(syn). This ratio should be one, if the everything is fine. This plot

http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-obs-syn-Canadian-F107.png

shows that from about 1991 [hence that year used as end year for the regression line], the ratio drops to about half by now. A few years where the SSN was too low for a well-determined ratio are plotted as open symbols.

It is clear that we get the same result as with the composite Canadian/Japanese series, as anybody with a modicum of number literacy [to appreciate the differences in magnitudes of the effects] would have expected in the first place.

2. That the NOAA count (less the .6 factor) has tracked the SIDC counted quite closely since 1991. It averages .6.

Doing a somewhat better job, like in this plot:

http://www.leif.org/research/NOAA-vs-SIDC.png

shows you the clear discontinuity about 2000.

Also I think you need to view the Sun through a Kellner lens and then try a modern lens for comparison.

Irrelevant as Keller uses the original optics [as did Waldmeier, and Wolf when he set his standard]. It has been pointed out several times to you by now that the seeing and the observer's experience are the important factors, and that the lenses do not matter much if larger than a minimum size and quality. Wolf's x40 pocket telescope does not, of course, answer to these minimum requirements. Wolf knew this, of course, and wholesale increased his x40 numbers by 50%.

P.S. the image importer doesn't always work. Perhaps you could fix my post for that....

Moving Target....

Your information seems to shift. In previous papers/presentations you state the Waldmeier system or similar was continued by the SIDC, now they know nothing about it? The Waldmeier system appears excessive, can you give a finished Waldmeier sunspot number for Sept 15.

I have changed the line detail for the below graph. The graph shows all the necessary detail. It encompasses daily records (not yearly) that then has a 30 day mov average trend. The F10.7 data (Canadian) is continuous, the SSN is a combination of Waldmeier's record and the pre & post 2001 SIDC figures.

Click on the graph for a larger view.

The SSN number shows no movement away from the F10.7 values. This clearly shows that all 3 stages of the SSN counting process has NOT varied. The Flux record providing the benchmark just like the geomagnetic record in Wolf's day. This graph is clear, precise and easy to understand, I cant see how you can argue against it.

The NOAA count is following the SIDC count, there is no step change, this is better than using amateur records.

Until we see Keller's drawings we cannot compare properly, taking a final number is not good enough. One example could be because he is seeing less and the Waldmeier weighting method might bring it close to today's SIDC values.

ps. use the green button to insert images on the text editor, the data import is dodgy.

 

Your information seems to

Your information seems to shift. In previous papers/presentations you state the Waldmeier system or similar was continued by the SIDC, now they know nothing about it? The Waldmeier system appears excessive, can you give a finished Waldmeier sunspot number for Sept 15.

[snip] Every competent student of the sunspot number knows that SIDC and Waldmeier employ different procedures: Waldmeier used only ONE observation per day, SIDC's is an average of ~50 stations. What was continued was the calibration, or rather, SIDC strove to maintain the same calibration against Wolf as Waldmeier, namely the infamous 0.6 factor. This they managed to do in the beginning, but it has changed in 2001 as I have shown so many times:

The ratio between SIDC and NOAA is shown as pink dots before 2001 and as green dots thereafter. It is clear there is a jump downwards.

The Waldmeier system appears excessive, can you give a finished Waldmeier sunspot number for Sept 15

[snip] Personally, I think it is a very good scheme as it gives much less weight to the specks, [snip]For Sept. 15, there were 2 groups with 11 spots and pores of different sizes [Locarno]. Wolfer would have counted this as 0.6*31=19. SIDC had 16 for that day. Waldmeier would have a weighted count of 37, thus a SSN of 0.6*37=22. Wolf would have had counted 2 groups each with one spot, thus Rwolf=22.

The F10.7 data (Canadian) is continuous, the SSN is a combination of Waldmeier's record and the pre & post 2001 SIDC figures. 

[snip] You should have known [at least from my papers] that the Canadian data is NOT 'continuous', but is a combination of Ottawa and Pentiction data [which have a small 2% difference], so both records are spliced together from different sub-series.

The SSN number shows no movement away from the F10.7 values.Here I took your graph and contrast the last cycle [on the right] with cycle 20 [on the left]. It should be obvious that on the right, the black curve is above the red, while on the left, the red curve is below the black, clearly showing how the SSN has changed relative to F10.7. [snip]. How did you produce the graph? how did you scale one to the other? Just using Excel is not good enough.

 

Anyway it is obvious that there is a difference. This is not an argument, but a demonstration.

The correct way of doing this is as I showed [you probably didn't even look, so here you get it again]. One plots R as a function of F [10.7]:

Using yearly, monthly, or daily values does not make any difference. The yearly ones are clearer [and also have less measurement errors - in fact 19 times smaller].

Then one compares the observed SSN with what to expect from F10.7 [based on the record up to 1991] and one gets:

The dark blue diamonds are for the Canadian data. The open light blue circles are for the corrected composite of Canadian and Japanese data [compensating for the Canadian station change]. Either way, the decline since about 1990 is undeniable.

Until we see Keller's drawings we cannot compare properly

Of course we can. You don't have Wolf's either and still you claim to compare. Anyway, Keller is not the main argument for the SIDC change. Many hundreds of observers agree on this:

I am [perhaps naively] convinced that you [as SIDC] will be able to understand, appreciate, and accept the above analysis, so we can put this discussion away.

EDIT: your Ad Hominem comments have been deleted...pick up your game Dr.Svalgaard

 

We might be getting closer...

Personally, I think it is a very good scheme as it gives much less weight to the specks, . For Sept. 15, there were 2 groups with 11 spots and pores of different sizes [Locarno]. Wolfer would have counted this as 0.6*31=19. SIDC had 16 for that day. Waldmeier would have a weighted count of 37, thus a SSN of 0.6*37=22. Wolf would have had counted 2 groups each with one spot, thus Rwolf=22.

You will need to tone down your agression Dr. Svalgaard.

The answer may lie right here, the Waldmeier count is above everyone (even NOAA without discount). How can that be? We can see the SIDC record continues on smoothly from Waldmeier. What telescope did Waldmeier use?

I looked through what would be close to what Keller sees today, 1 spot with some specks around. I think Wolf would have counted 13 today at best, more likely 11.

 

  Personally, I think it is a

 

Personally, I think it is a very good scheme as it gives much less weight to the specks, . For Sept. 15, there were 2 groups with 11 spots and pores of different sizes [Locarno]. Wolfer would have counted this as 0.6*31=19. SIDC had 16 for that day. Waldmeier would have a weighted count of 37, thus a SSN of 0.6*37=22. Wolf would have had counted 2 groups each with one spot, thus Rwolf=22.

You will need to tone down your agression Dr. Svalgaard.

The original text pointed out Waldmeier's scheme aims to discount specks compared to larger spots and that you were inconsistent deeming that aim to be 'excessive'. Of course, it is not pleasant to be called out, but necessary in this case.

The answer may lie right herethe Walmeier count is above everyone (even NOAA without discount). How can that be? We can see the SIDC record continues on smoothly from Waldmeier. What telescope did Waldmeier use?

Of course Waldmeier is above everyone [the 22%] because of his counting bigger spots multiple times. SIDC continues smoothly from Waldmeier by design. SIDC wanted to be compatible with Waldmeier [at least initially, they have later jumped down]. Waldmeier used the original x64 Wolf telescope. For fear of being called aggressive, may I point out that I given you this information many times.

I looked through what would be close to what Keller sees today, 1 spot with some specks around. I think Wolf would have counted 13 today at best, more likely 11.

If you used the x40 you would not be approximating Keller. If you used 8 cm aperture and x64 eyepiece, you would still not approximate Keller. Studies have shown that inexperienced observers [like you] see a lot less [by a factor of two] in the beginning. It takes a year with several hundred observations to become experienced. You should also be more precise: what is 'today'? Sept. 15 or 16 UT?

 

Some ground may need to be given...

Waldmeier came up with his own system which has in part destroyed the sunspot record. His method may have merit but there is no way we can compare with the past after 1945. The right way to fix the record is to discount all records since Waldmeier.

SIDC continues smoothly from Waldmeier by design...

Yes that is becoming very obvious, although perhaps you are not seeing it.  Your confirmation that Waldmeier used Wolf's telescope is revealing exactly what I and others have thought for some time. Waldmeier changed the system, overnight raising the SSN by 22% with his new world counting scheme. To continue the record the SIDC instead of using his system used superior optics to remain in line with his method which is verified by the F10.7 Flux benchmark (of sorts).

if you used the x40 you would not be approximating Keller.

Please give me some credit....I have many viewing options, Today I recorded 64x images that are very close, I think to Wolf's main telescope. I am also a very quick learner with an exceptional eye for detail (so I have been told). Your premise on taking 12 months to see the real detail is worrying...do we need to milk the record by straining to see what most cannot. This didn't happen in Wolf's day, he set a threshold so that only the real spots were counted.

The difference between the 15th & 16th  is very minor. Especially when looking through the old scopes.

Here is an idea...lets do a joint paper on the telescope differences Wolf & now. You get the grant and we will fly to Zurich and look through Keller's scope then hop across to Locarno to compare the difference?

 

 

  Waldmeier came up with his

 

Waldmeier came up with his own system which has in part destroyed the sunspot record. His method may have merit but there is no way we can compare with the past after 1945. The right way to fix the record is to discount all records since Waldmeier.

You are not precise. Do you mean since 1945 or since 1980? But there is a good way of fixing the record, namely what Wolf taught us: use the magnetic needle [or a proxy like auroral counts], as Wolf himself did, e.g. for SC5. This works fine. My reconstruction is good.

SIDC continues smoothly from Waldmeier by design...Yes that is becoming very obvious, although perhaps you are not seeing it. 

You are forgetting that I pointed that out to you. So for a few years their calibration was the same. Later, in ~2001, SIDC has jumped lower by 12%.

Your confirmation that Waldmeier used Wolf's telescope is revealing exactly what I and others have thought for some time. Waldmeier changed the system, overnight raising the SSN by 22% with his new world counting scheme.

Again, you are forgetting [?] that I told you that first. Don't try to take credit for something you in the past have resisted or derided.

To continue the record the SIDC instead of using his system used superior optics to remain in line with his method which is verified by the F10.7 Flux benchmark (of sorts).

Not at all, SIDC receives raw counts from ~100 observers, many with small x40 scopes. Then computes their weighted average taking into account the different k-factors.

Please give me some credit....

Credit has to be earned...

Your premise on taking 12 months to see the real detail is worrying...do we need to milk the record by straining to see what most cannot. This didn't happen in Wolf's day, he set a threshold so that only the real spots were counted.

This is not a 'premise' but an experimental fact. See Schaefer's article on this: http://www.leif.otg/EOS/Schaefer-1993ApJ-411-909.pdf

Wolf's threshold is undefined [although I may have an approximation to it: don't count what shows up on Catania as a pore], which is why Wolfer's method is far better: count all you can see, straining hard to see the faintest detail, then throw away the first year's worth of data.

So yes, you do need to milk the record. Unless you do as I tell you: carefully determine if something is a spot or a pore. And then use Wolf's direct method as I have described for Catania. Don't try to subtract something from SIDC's count, that is plainly wrong [bordering on silly, if one knows anything about sunspot counting]..

Here is an idea...lets do a joint paper on the telescope differences Wolf & now. You get the grant and we will fly to Zurich and look through Keller's scope then hop across to Locarno to compare the difference?

I'm already trying to set up such a meeting, but not to look through the telescope. This would be silly as we do not have the experience to do this in a meaningful way.

BTW, L&P are in the news, and not met with too much hostility:

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/09/say-goodbye-to-sunspots.html

Hathaway's reaction [at the end - possibly misquoted] does not make much sense, so perhaps discount that. 

 

 

 

Wolf right, Waldmeier wrong, Svalgaard wrong on modern telescope

Well it has all played out perhaps, I have written to the SIDC to confirm how they have aligned their counting methods with Waldmeier. All of your claims that Wolf's telescope is the same as Catania, Locarno and perhaps NOAA will be found to be misplaced. You must be credited within uncovering the Waldmeier factor, but getting it wrong on the telescope technology side after that. The modern count will be shown to be very different to Wol'fs original method, If Waldmeier is found to have introduced a new counting system he made a grave mistake by not allowing comparsion with the past.

The SIDC rightly or wrongly have calibrated the modern count to continue on from Waldmeier, but a problem remains. By increasing the seeing capacity of the modern scope more specks are recorded in relation to spots. Wolfer's .6 K factor can no longer be considered accurate and will become even more inaccurate when the actual speck ratio itself increases during times of Grand Minima. By good design and some good fortune the Layman's Sunspot Count is right on the money.

Geoff says...Your confirmation that Waldmeier used Wolf's telescope is revealing exactly what I and others have thought for some time. Waldmeier changed the system, overnight raising the SSN by 22% with his new world counting scheme.

Leif replys Again, you are forgetting [?] that I told you that first. Don't try to take credit for something you in the past have resisted or derided.

I am not sure where you get this idea from, I have never denied the Waldmeier factor. It actually supports the Layman's method. But I see you are still denying that the Wolf 64x scope sees a lot less than Locarno?

BTW, L&P are in the news, and not met with too much hostility:

I see they have also taken notice of their critics and highlighted the weaknesses in their study. They are now drifting out beyond 2020 but they are basically predicting a grand minimum for SC24/25 ...backing up my prediction. I think their prediction of 66 might be high for SC24, but that might depend on which count you use.

  Wolf right, Waldmeier

 

Wolf right, Waldmeier wrong, Svalgaard wrong on modern telescope

All of your claims that Wolf's telescope is the same as Catania, Locarno and perhaps NOAA will be found to be misplaced.

No, the claim is that once the telescope is good enough [Wolf's telescope], a larger scope will not see more spots or pores or specks as there is a minimum size to these and seeing is the real determining factor. SIDC and NOAA do not use 'a scope', but report the combined result from dozens of observers.

The modern count will be shown to be very different to Wol'fs original method

Of course it is [by design], as it should be to give the correct [or at least better] picture of solar activity. This was Wolfer's great improvement over Wolf. 

By good design and some good fortune the Layman's Sunspot Count is right on the money.

You avoided [repeatedly] to tell us how your threshold was derived. Perhaps it is time to tell us now. If not, one must conclude that there is no sound design and that the threshold is arbitrary. So here is your chance to correct that impression. 

But I see you are still denying that the Wolf 64x scope sees a lot less than Locarno?

Waldmeier who observed with both determined that the same factor of 0.6 applies to both x64 and Locarno and Catania. Who am I [and you] to deny that? BTW, Mt Wilson has a very large telescope, focal length 150 feet, and does not see more specks, e.g. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/images/cur_drw.jpg the same is true for Livingston with an even bigger telescope [projected image is four feet across].

predicting a grand minimum for SC24/25 ...backing up my prediction

Everybody and his brother is predicting low cycles, e.g. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003SPD....34.0603S

Even me, slide 28 of http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-Seminar-14Sept.pdf

Now, what L&P show is that a zero sunspot number [because of B < 1500 G] does not mean zero solar activity, but just that the SSN is not a good measure of solar activity. This means that a Grand Minimum is really not very different from a normal minimum in terms of solar output, e.g. the resulting cosmic ray modulation is hardly affected.

 

Still Wrong

No, the claim is that once the telescope is good enough [Wolf's telescope], a larger scope will not see more spots or pores or specks as there is a minimum size to these and seeing is the real determining factor.

Your own Mt. Wilson reference below shows the exact opposite. Compare the drawings from the much smaller telescope of Locarno and you will see a Big difference in detail. http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2010/loc-d20100916.JPG  .Granted you can only see so much but the point is the Wolf 64x is missing half the detail shown by Locarno. This is what I am seeing with own eyes. You say the Keller figures are very close to Catania, but have admitted the Keller figures have the Waldmeier weighting scale built in which should provide a roughly 22% higher value than Catania if viewing is equal. Catania doesn't use the Waldmeier weighting, so what is the difference?

You also say Waldmeier used the  Wolf 64x telescope for his count, but I notice he also used the Locarno telescope from 1957 (which he built). The Locarno telescope is the same specification as Catania. Do you know precisely when he used his weighting scale and with what telescope?

The Layman's original 23 pixel threshold was first developed by establishing what was visible via the GONG images. Later Robert B confirmed through his own real experience and through analysis that 23 pixels is a good guide.

Of course it is [by design], as it should be to give the correct [or at least better] picture of solar activity. This was Wolfer's great improvement over Wolf.

And hence the need for the Layman's Count....But Waldmeier providing the greatest need.

Waldmeier who observed with both determined that the same factor of 0.6 applies to both x64 and Locarno and Catania.Waldmeier who observed with both determined that the same factor of 0.6 applies to both x64 and Locarno and Catania.

But did he include his weighting method with the Wolf 64x figures. Your Keller analysis would suggest so.

 

new Still Right Your own Mt.

new

Still Right

Do you know precisely when he used his weighting scale and with what telescope?

Waldmeier used the larger telescopes for other solar work, like filaments and faculae. He is very explicit about using ONLY the x64 for the sunspot count. You should begin to take my words at face value because I know what I'm talking about. It is tiresome to have to repeat myself again and again.

The Layman's original 23 pixel threshold was first developed by establishing what was visible via the GONG images. Later Robert B confirmed through his own real experience and through analysis that 23 pixels is a good guide.

That is not a valid analysis, but just hand waving. You need to come up with plots or numerical analysis that shows how what you see depends on the threshold and then justify how the particular value you selected match the data. Ask Robert for his analysis and report back.

And hence the need for the Layman's Count....But Waldmeier providing the greatest need.

We do not need to replicate Wolf, but Wolfer [and Waldmeier - as the magnetic needle can be used to compensate for Waldmeier's weighting]. Trying to do Wolf is not science. We have more than a century post-Wolf knowledge of what and how we should count. Forget about Wolf. We can use the magnetic needle to compensate for his shortcomings, as he himself did to compensate for Staudacher and Schwabe's. You say somewhere that "Wolf's method is under threat". It has [and rightfully] been so since 1878.

But did he include his weighting method with the Wolf 64x figures. 

Of course he did, as he only used the Wolf x64 standard scope. We don't need to guess or find 'suggestions'. All of this is now clear and everything makes good sense.

 

 

Squirming....

The 8 hour gap is a poor defense, there is definitely more detail, even the flux tubes in the penumbra are clear. They didn't make it 150 foot long for nothing. My eyes are 20/20 and it doesn't take everyone 12 months, Schaefer and his wife is only one example.

Your squirming on the Keller data...all along saying its the same as now but having to concede that an extra factor is involved. Your last statement is the closer, if Waldmeier had to include his weighting factor to boost the Wolf 64x numbers in order to match Locarno there is obviously a difference in seeing. Unless you can come up with another idea??

The Locarno 150mm Zeiss telescope has been in operation since 1957. Apparently the same observer in operation today.  I am still waiting on the SIDC response but it seems likely they just continued on with the standard Locarno values (as a reference point) that Waldmeier cross checked with, but had to include his fudge factor to equal.

  My eyes are 20/20 and it

 

My eyes are 20/20 and it doesn't take everyone 12 months, Schaefer and his wife is only one example.

You have a tendency to deliberately omit relevant material. Section 10 of the Schafer paper says: "When an observer first begins looking for sunspots, it will take some time and many trials before the observer learns what spots look like and the best way to search for them. This time for learning is well known to organizations which collect sunspot counts, in that new observers have large values of K which then decrease to some constant value over time (Taylor 1991). [...] On 1991 July 8, 30 inexperienced observers had their S measured and were then asked to look for sunspots. [...etc...]" So we are not just talking about Schaefer and his wife [and they would be two examples]. This is well known  to people who know something about observing sunspots.

 if Waldmeier had to include his weighting factor to boost the Wolf 64x numbers in order to match Locarno there is obviously a difference in seeing. Unless you can come up with another idea??

He didn't 'have' to do anything like that. He used the weighting because he thought that Wolfer had introduced the weighting back in 1882.

SIDC response but it seems likely they just continued on with the standard Locarno values (as a reference point) that Waldmeier cross checked with, but had to include his fudge factor to equal.

SIDC's values are an average of 50-60 observers. They only use Locarno as a check that the values do not have any long-term drift. There are no fudge factors anywhere. These people are serious scientists who do not have an agenda to push.

And we are still waiting for a description of the analysis of your threshold. Your silence and evasion on this is perhaps very telling. 

 

Wolfer

You are still squirming, the only way the telescopes are the same is when the Waldmeier factor is applied to the weaker telescope. Yes or No?

He didn't 'have' to do anything like that. He used the weighting because he thought that Wolfer had introduced the weighting back in 1882.

When hard pressed against the ropes you offer a diversion. Would you care to expand on this claim and not leave important information out in the process.

Recording sunspots is a difficult task requiring perhaps 12 months to attain. But the ability to actually observe a single speck does not change with time, you are confusing the issue.

The Layman's threshold is irrelevant right now.


The whole story

Before 1861 Wolf used the superb Fraunhofer x64 refractor to set the standard. For several years after 1860 Wolf was engaged in the Geodetic Survey of all Switzerland and was often away. In order not to disrupt the sunspot series by prolonged absences, Wolf took to use a smaller, portable x40 'pocket' telescope which he eventually used exclusively, letting this assistant Wolfer from ~1877 observe with the x64. Wolf was well aware that the x40 did not show all the spots that he would count [plus the many even smaller ones that he wouldn't count anyway] with the x64, so Wolf increased all x40 counts by 50% [In particular this means that the x40 did not set the 'threshold' for what should be counted with the standard x64]. Also in 1861 Wolf summarily doubled all values before ~1800 that he had derived using Staudacher's drawings because that would bring the count into better agreement with the magnetic needle].  Using the same argument, Wolf in 1874 increased all values before his own observations started in 1849 by 25% based on new magnetic data from Milan since 1835.

Wolfer realized that Wolf's criterion for what to count was too subjective and proposed to [and did for his own measurements] count everything that could be seen with a given scope. Based on 17 years of simultaneous measurements, Wolfer [after Wolf's death in 1893] found that multiplying his all-inclusive counts by 0.6 would bring them into agreement [on a statistical basis - not on a day-by-day basis] with Wolf's values. This was a mistake. Rather than lowing the numbers, they should have been increased by a factor of 1/0.6=1.67, just as Wolf increased the numbers in 1861 and 1874. Had he done that, we might not now have all the discussion about the 0.6, because that factor would have been quietly forgotten, just like nobody today worries [and most don't even know] about the factors 2.0 and 1.25 that Wolf applied to the early data. But perhaps there was by 1893 a 'user base' that might object to such correction.

Wolfer's successor Brunner carried on Wolfer's count faithfully using the x64, so no discontinuity was introduced. Waldmeier who took over in 1945 was inexperienced with the x64 and wrongly [as far as I can discover from reading all the thousands of pages of the Astronomische Mitteilungen from Zurich] believed that Wolfer [since 1882] had used a weighting scheme counting the smallest specks once, pores twice, ordinary spots thrice, and larger spots 5 times. The weighting schema that was applied to x64 counts [which was always used for the sunspot number, even as Waldmeier used larger telescopes in his studies of filaments and faculae].

The weighting schema introduces an [artificial] upward jump of some 20% of the sunspot number. It would be best to compensate for that by increasing the earlier numbers by that factor [following Wolf's procedure of adjusting earlier data] to maintain the current calibration of the sunspot number [which is used by operational programs - military, avionics, satellites, etc].

At the end of 1978 Waldmeier retired and the custody of the sunspot series was transferred to SIDC in Brussels. Waldmeier's assistant, Hans-Uwe Keller continued observing [to the present] with the original x64 using Waldmeier's weighting scheme [as far as I know - the sources just say that he 'continued the series']. SIDC used various methods [including Keller's data] and observations from Locarno to harmonize their calibration with Waldmeier's. They were partly successful in achieving this, although comparison with F10.7 may indicate a small [5%] change. Later, about 2001, there has been a downward jump of 12-15% in the SIDC calibration, which are now undercounting the spots compared to NOAA and all the other dozen organizations counting spots [including Keller]. The reason for this is under investigation, but there is no doubt that the SIDC count is too low [even SIDC as per my recent visit, does not dispute that].   

  the only way the telescopes

 

the only way the telescopes are the same is when the Waldmeier factor is applied to the weaker telescope. Yes or No?

Ill-posed. Both telescopes should be treated the same way. If you do, they agree, as Waldmeier has reported so many times.

He didn't 'have' to do anything like that. He used the weighting because he thought that Wolfer had introduced the weighting back in 1882. When hard pressed against the ropes you offer a diversion. Would you care to expand on this claim and not leave important information out in the process.

True to form, you are economical with the truth [or does jinki disagree with you?]. You are not able to 'press hard' or otherwise. Consider this whole exchange as [much needed] education of you. Anyway, if you would care to read my talk at SIDC http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-Seminar-14Sept.pdf , you'll see that I start out [the first two slides] by expanding on my claim and substantiating the facts. To repeat myself: Waldmeier in his 1961 book states that he believes Wolfer introduced the weighting in 1882. The next slide cites Waldmeier's paper from 1968 explaining his weighting method. 

Recording sunspots is a difficult task requiring perhaps 12 months to attain. But the ability to actually observe a single speck does not change with time, you are confusing the issue.

Again, you distort the truth. Shaefer [and all experienced solar observers] directly reports that the ability to see anything increases with time.

The Layman's threshold is irrelevant right now.

Meaning that the Layman's count is irrelevant. But the threshold analysis in NOT irrelevant, because it goes to your integrity: How was it derived? There is a claim [true or not] that it was derived by some kind of analysis. To establish credibility you must produce the analysis. Otherwise you simply don't have any.

 

P.S. New comment on 'The Whole Story' as the width of replies is shrinking with each new one.

 

 

Man up Dr. Svalgaard.

You have been asked the question and are afraid to answer it.

“Would the original Wolf 64x telescope record the same sunspot numbers as Locarno if the Waldmeier “weighting factor” was not applied to the Wolf 64x telescope?”

But if we look at the detail of your previous posts you have already conceded the Wolf 64x telescope has to have the Waldmeier 22% factor included to equal the Locarno figures. It is a pity you are not man enough to admit you were wrong, or perhaps misled us with your statements implying the Wolf 64x telescope is equal in seeing power to Locarno or Catania.

Shame Dr. Svalgaard.

 


But if we look at the detail

But if we look at the detail of your previous posts you have already conceded the Wolf 64x telescope has to have the Waldmeier 22% factor included to equal the Locarno figures.

Where do we get the Locarno figures from during 1945-1978? From Waldmeier, so he of course applies the same technique, so the numbers are the same. I.e. his Locarno figures also have the 22% included.

still wrong...

Not a chance...the proper Locarno figures start in 1957 when the 150mm Zeiss telescope was installed. The detail of these figures according to you were not used until 1981, as the Wolf 64x telescope was the only values that Waldmeier used.

Your reluctance to admit the truth is deplorable and not acceptable on a science website. You will need to provide adequate data to support your claims that the Wolf 64x telescope is equal to Locarno or risk being banned for misleading the public which is considered obnoxious behaviour.

 

Your reluctance to admit the

Your reluctance to admit the truth is deplorable and not acceptable on a science website. You will need to provide adequate data to support your claims that the Wolf 64x telescope is equal to Locarno or risk being banned for misleading the public which is considered obnoxious behaviour.

Pressing you too hard into the ropes, perhaps. I'll turn the table that you need to provide data to support the opposite claim [especially in view of below]. This exchange has been saved for submission to WUWT if necessary.

The detail of these Locarno figures according to you were not used until 1981

But were reported by Waldmeier in his yearly reports and he always found the same 0.6 factor. And, of course, were used occasional as backup data when Zurich was cloudy.

BTW, it is obvious from this recent drawing that Locarno still applies the Waldmeier weighting:

http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2010/loc-d20100918.JPG

Thus it is clear that when Waldmeier claims that both the x64 and Locarno need the same factor 0.6 to conform to the Wolf standard, that x64 and Locarno show the same spots.

 

Several apologies from you are in order here and on WUWT. 

The Plot Thickens. The whole story is not known quite yet.

Below is a copy of my post on Anthony Watt's site. Some new revelations that still suggest a big difference in telescopes.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Geoff Sharp says:
September 19, 2010 at 5:18 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 3:42 am

Geoff Sharp says:
September 19, 2010 at 3:16 am
The “weighting factor” (22%) is not applied to Locarno.
Care to prove your claim?

A simple check of the daily Locarno drawings show they count as per Wolfer.

http://www.specola.ch/e/drawings.html

I was wrong. Locarno does use a modified version of the Waldmeier weighting scheme to arrive at their daily sunspot number. The plot thickens.

On my Blog on the 16th of Sept I received an answer to a question posed to Dr. Svalgaard who had just returned from a SIDC presentation.

"Can you give an example of how this rating system of Waldmeier's was applied to the standard count, and how and when it was used within the SIDC for continuance."

His answer:

"It is in my talk on slide 3. Perhaps I was assuming too much and should have provided a translation: "a speck is counted once, A larger one but still without penumbra {a pore} is given the statistical weight 2 [i.e. counted twice], a small ordinary spot 3, and a large one 5 [i.e. counted 5 times]".

This method is used by Waldmeier and by Keller, but not by SIDC [as far as they knew (!) as they get SSN from some 50 observers some of which may have used the weighting. After ~2000 they think none of the observers used Waldmeier's double, triple, etc counting any more. This is all being checked at the moment. They know that they are undercounting."

On proper inspection of the Locarno record it appears they are using a version of the the Waldmeier weighting factor. I had missed it because they are only applying it to the larger spots. It amazes me that the SIDC and Dr.Svalgaard were not aware of this at the time. The Catania records from my checks this morning do not use the Walmeier weighting factor. I need to do a more thorough analysis but when comparing the drawings of Locarno and Catania, the latter does look to be recording more specks. The 8th Feb is a good day to compare, Catania showing far greater detail.

From what I can gather the larger spots are getting multiplied by 3 or 5 and there appears to be a sunspot threshold size where it can also be multiplied by 2. They are not appearing to use the full Waldmeier weighting method as described by Dr. Svalgaard above. One could assume the trimmed down weighting factor is to allow for the technical differences in the the original Wolf 64x and the 1957 design Locarno Zeiss telescope. The SIDC have gone to great pains to keep the record continuous.

Locarno produce a yearly report and repeat the body of text each year. They give a clue to the cut down version of Waldmeier's system in the text.

"The  very  simple  definition  of  the Relative Sunspot Number R,  given  by Rudolf Wolf
(1851 and 1858) :

R = k(10g + f)
 
were   g    is  the number of observed sunspot-groups,   f    the    total   number   of observed
sunspots  and   k    the  reduction  coefficient,  contrasts   with    the  relative  complexity    of
their  determination.  The  contrast  is  due  to  the  precaution  needed  to  preserve  the
calibration  defined  by Rudolf Wolf.  Several  criteria  for  the  control  of  this  calibration
have been enounced by Max Waldmeier (1968, 1971).
At  the  level  of  the  basic  visual  observation,  a  thorough  experience  is  required  to
determine  correctly  the number of groups  (g), wich  is not necessarily  concordant with
the  physical  grouping  based  on magnetic  field  polarities,  and  in wich, moreover,  the
limits  set  between  A1  groups  and  pores  may  depend  upon  seeing  quality  and
instrumental  parameters. As  to  f  ,  the weighting  of  large  umbrae  (e.g. M.Waldmeier,
1961), must be applied self consistently, even after minimum periods,  in order  to keep
the link to the sunspot areas unchanged.
From January1,1981, the relative numbers are being calculated at the Royal Belgian
Observatory and edited by  the Sunspot  Index Data Center,  (now Solar  Influences Data
analysis  Center,  SIDC),  according  to  a  metod  wich hardly  differs  from  that  used  in
Zürich, in order to preserve the omogeneity of the series.  "

As all stations are factored against Locarno, this means the Waldmeier factor is having a large impact on the finished daily sunspot.

So what seems to be fleshing out is that Waldmeier introduced for whatever reason a big step in the sunspot record (22%) in 1945 when he introduced his sunspot weighting factors. When Locarno was the main telescope when the SIDC took over in 1981 they used and continue to use a cut down version of the Waldmeier system and today with even better equipment the Catania telescope requires no Waldmeier factor to keep aligned with the past.

I maintain that modern technology and differences between telescopes occurs even though the base 64x magnification remains the same. With every new piece of evidence that is being uncovered more weight is put on the importance of maintaining the Layman's Sunspot Count for comparing to the pre 1945 sunspot records.

Keller graph needs revisiting.

As we now know the Catania figures do not include the Waldmeier factor. So to compare with Keller (who we would assume used the full Waldmeier system) we should be using the Locarno figures that at least uses a large proportion of the Waldmeier system as well as the total SIDC count. It is becoming very obvious that Catania are in their own league.

The "Wolf" numbers need to be omitted. It is bad science to think you can construct a "Wolf" number based on Catania spot/pore ratios. Catania is capable of counting specks that are just above the background granulation.

  From Frederic Clette:On


 

From Frederic Clette [my emphasis]:
On 09/23/2010 10:23 AM, Leif Svalgaard wrote:
1) Yes, the 0.6 change is solely due to the counting rule. Wolfer is
very clear on this.

This is probably right, also for the reason below (secondary role of the telescope, once above a ~50 mm aperture).

2) Waldmeier measured the k-factor for Locarno for each year and
always reported it to be close to 0.6, i.e. just the same as for the
old 8 cm Wolf telescope. Waldmeier and Sergio used the same weighting
system, so no wonder that they get the same result. This shows that
the telescope is not really the limiting factor, but the counting
method and the observer are.

I am happy to hear that you reach about the same conclusion as the one I reached in my earlier answer to Goeff Sharp. It makes all the debate about the use of small Wolf-like refractors rather unimportant for what concerns the long-term calibration issue.

Now, if indeed Wolf’s 8cm telescope was still used completely independently of their 15cm telescope up to the “end” of Zürich in 1980, as I pointed out in my previous answer, it raises the issue of the subtle and progressive inclusion of the Locarno values that were obtained in a way that was more different than any change that occurred over the previous 130 years. If indeed the Zürich/SIDC transition in 1980 was the actual time when simultaneously the index computation method, the pilot station and observer changed, and now also when for the first time the reference Wolf telescope was not anymore used, it is even more remarkable that the transition was seamless (to the point that the suspicious Waldmeier change in the counting method seems to have simply propagated to today). It again indicates that for the Ri index, the exact choice of instrument at Zürich does not play a key role.

Similarly, as I mentioned in my earlier message to Goeff, I also conclude that a key element is the stability of the Locarno observer, Sergio Cortesi, who I met personally two years ago to celebrate his 50 years of sunspot service. I previously pointed out that quite luckily, both Sergio and also André Koeckelenbergh, the SIDC founder, are still alive and well and can confirm a lot of (unwritten?) information and that I am precisely about to contact them with specific questions about the changes in counting rules and in the instruments that we discussed over the past few days.

In this respect, may I point out that this will require some time, both to get the answers and to study the pieces of information (crossing the facts and combining different sources including the Mitteilungen of the Zürich Observatory). Reconstructing daily practices and methodological choices made over such a long period cannot be done overnight. I am sure that you will agree with this. Another important dimension that we would like you to develop when you plot ratios and trends is the inclusion of error bars (intervals of confidence). Indeed, in our current investigations, a lot of the undulations and jumps prove to be different for each couple of data series and often prove to be not significant statistically or only partly significant (over a narrow time interval) changing the possible interpretation. So, more analysis and more data sets awaits us before your (definitely interesting!) interrogations lead to a solid conclusion. I urged you already to be a bit patient! We are a small team with tiny budget and a lot of obligations (operational production of the index, management of the observing network, development of new software, development of new CCD imaging technique, etc.!). So, we cannot solve everything in one day!

Therefore, I think that this fast-paced real-time exchange on a blog is not at all timely and appropriate. It prevents any deepening and verification of the arguments, thus leading to clashes of superficial opinions. This is quite incompatible with a scientific approach. Exposing incomplete and unfinished analyses is premature and uselessly spread confusion, especially to the non-specialists in public forums like a blog. Thus also a catastrophe in terms of public information. This is the reason why we refrain from using this channel to communicate with our users, amateur astronomers and the public at large.

Consequently, from now on, I earnestly ask you both, Leif and Goeff, to stop this thread of discussion on the blog involving our mail exchanges.

Anyway, I will stop answering any mail if the answer is grabbed by either of you to feed a debate of opinion. Cutting our exchanges would be a sad outcome as the subject is interesting and Leif brings valuable knowledge and provocative science issues on which we really want to work (and are currently working!) . Simply, you will have ample time for discussions and reflections, on blogs or any other medium, later on once the issues are clarified and confirmed (So, not only suspicions of past biases, a non-information, but the explanation of the cause of the bias once confirmed, i.e. something much more demanding but then really informative). Here, as long-term phenomena are involved, quite naturally, issues can only be solved after some time has elapsed and sufficient relevant data have accumulated or have been recovered. There is no shortcut! I trust that you will understand these constraints and that you will take some distance with the current obsession of “everything immediately”.

Secondly, Leif, as you specially requested that I produce a corrective answer for publication on that blog, I invite you and/or Goeff to publish this message in full.

This should be my last input to your personal blog discussions, explaining to the blog readers why we don’t feel like playing the role of the ball in this ping-pong game that will have no end, as the discussion is premature and confined to a superficial level.

Leif, let us go on instead in the good spirit that I appreciated when you visited us recently for an open an insightful discussion. It is really a blessing that experienced people devote time and work to such far-reaching, but quite neglected, long-term solar studies, like you do. But let us keep the manner how it is done on the right track!

And my reply to Frederic:
“Thanks for your reply. I wholly agree that the reason for SIDC drifting is not clear and must await your detailed analysis. On the other hand, analysis of Waldmeier, Wolfer, Wolf, etc is fair game and is important for the very-long-term picture of solar activity.
Thanks again, and I appreciate our discussions during my seminar.”

------

Clette: "Based on my sunspot observing experience, I would explain this intrinsic stability by the fact that solar plasma research has shown that there is a a constant lower limit for the smallest possible spots. It is dictated by the physics of magnetic flux tubes trapped in the solar convective patterns. This limit is around 2000 km (close to the size of a photospheric granule), i.e. about 2.8 arcsec as seen from the Earth. This value is close to the theoretical angular resolution of a perfect 50mm aperture telescope and also close to the average daytime seeing. So, a large instrument or good seeing will not bring a dramatic increase of the number of detected sunspots. Smaller spots that would be below the resolution of small-aperture telescopes ( D<100mm) but would be revealed by ever larger instruments simply don't exist! Once the 100mm aperture "barrier" was exceeded with good doublet lenses (late 19th century), all spots were included in observations and the scaling of counts levelled out naturally, even if the average amateur instruments continued to improve over the 20th century. So, in a way, it is a bad idea to try sticking to small resolution-limited telescopes equivalent to Wolf's telescope. The sunspot count is then made dependant on the instrument, while with a larger and better instrument, the count depends only on three "external" global parameters that cannot be suspected of secular variations, unlike the telescope technology: primarily, the lower physical size limit for sunspots and at a secondary level, the average atmospheric turbulence in the Earth atmosphere and the visual acuity of the human eye."

 

 

 

By omitting pores from

By omitting pores from Catania, I get something that is close to Keller and to 0.6*Full Catania. Since everybody [e.g. Wolfer, Waldmeier, me, SIDC] agree that to get to Wolf, one needs to multiply by 0.6, it is clear that simply omitting pores becomes a good approximation to Wolf. Keller is still a bit too high [because of the weighting], but everything fits well, and no reconsidering is needed.

Some confusion...

But I will honor Frederic's wishes and await the outcome.

No confusion, all is clear:

No confusion, all is clear: the telescope makes no difference once it is above 50 mm. As I have shown, Waldmeier introduced a jump in 1945 that we can compensate for as it was carried into the modern count as well.

Missing one element.

In a equal world without atmosphere perhaps. There is also the issue of design which you ignore. Wolf didnt count the small stuff for a reason, a lot of the days he couldnt see it.

Keep the door open Leif, more will be revealed I think.

Clette: "Smaller spots that

Clette:

"Smaller spots that would be below the resolution of small-aperture telescopes ( D<100mm) but would be revealed by ever larger instruments simply don't exist!"

Keller must be matched with Locarno.

Reconsidering is needed. Lorcarno is the world's primary base station, it follows what now seems as the Wolfer weighting system (with perhaps a Waldmeier flavour). Catania follows a different method and has better air and technology.  Keller as you describe follows the Locarno standard. The only comparison required is Keller raw vs Locarno raw.

I have the following comments

I have the following comments to your 'historical notes':

 

[During his time Wolf did not count small spots and specks, he set a threshold size that is now lost to science but it was set for two very good reasons.

1. He was trying to match his records with the past, the prior records were recorded through telescopes of lesser technology. Even so he had to make adjustments to the older record.

2. His own telescope only saw the minor spots/specks when conditions were good.(Today we can see even smaller specks with the 150mm equipment)

Wolf set a threshold for good reason, we should have preserved his vision.]

...........

Wolf was not trying to match his record with the past. He adjusted the past (twice) to match his own data. Every serious observer since Wolf agree that the threshold was a bad idea.

------------------

[My research is showing that he also introduced the sunspot weighting scheme that has been perhaps falsely attributed to Waldmeier many years later.]

............

Wolfer did not introduce the weighting factor. Direct comparisons with drawings by others up through the 1920s show no weighting, that is: whenever a single very large spot was present on the disk, Wolfer still reported the SSN as 7 = 0.6*(1*10+1).

------------------

[Waldmeier introduced a new sunspot group classification scheme that could have raised the amount of groups counted, He also may have introduced a new telescope during his reign. In 1968 all 3 of the Swiss stations were running 150mm refractors producing a 250mm projection, so far I have not found any reference from Waldmeier after 1947 re the use of the old Wolf telescope.]

............

Waldmeier stated categorically in every single annual report [I have all of them] that the 80mm original Wolf telescope was always used. In fact Waldmeier continued using the 80mm through 1996. From the 1977 report: "the instrument used by Wolf is still in operation for these observations"

------------------

[The aperture lenses are nearly twice the diameter and the focal lengths are more than twice the length of Wolf's 64x scope, the design of the optics is also unknown on the modern scopes which can also make quite a difference, these motor driven, auto cooled/no tube telescopes are a far cry from Wolf's telescopes.]

..............

Many observers step down their telescope to about 80mm (as that actually improves the visibility of the spots). E.g. Locarno with their 150mm scope has a piece of cardboard in place to step down the aperture to 80mm. Extensive experimentation many decades ago showed this to be effective. [Cortesi, personal communication].

In addition, the original telescopes (both the 80mm and the handheld ones) still exist and are still being used every day. There is no indication that they count any less than the modern ones.

-------------------

I trust that you'll correct your text according to the information in this comment.

 

Thanks Leif, I have adjusted

Thanks Leif, I have adjusted the text. As there is some irregularities in the records I have retained some of the areas of question. I am not so trusting of the older records as you.

Could you provide some more information on the Locarno telescope:

Is the 80mm cardboard stopdown used every day to record their official count. And if so what date was this device used from.

Also when projecting a 250mm image from the standard 64X Locarno telescope, does this increase the magnification (as seen on the projected image) as compared to normal viewing with the naked eye through the eyepiece. I could test this myself with my own equipment but dont wish to risk frying the expensive equipment.

If Locarno do project using the stopdown it would explain the difference seen in the Catania drawings which almost always show more detail and specks ( I am assuming Catania is not stop downed to 80mm). The individual K factor for Catania I assume would counter for this except on the days where Locarno is down and very small single specks are counted by Catania. I would have to concede if the 80mm stopdown has been in continuous use at Locarno, the telescope issue would be of lesser importance.

 

 

 

  Thanks Leif, I have

 

Thanks Leif, I have adjusted the text. As there is some irregularities in the records I have retained some of the areas of question. I am not so trusting of the older records as you.

I have actually looked at the old records [they still exixt - in Wolf's neat hand].

I don't see any substantive adjustments to the text. For example you still say " He was trying to match his records with the past". This is a misrepresentation of his intent. He was trying to match the past records with his own. This is a 180 degree change of emphasis. He did not use a threshold to degrade his own observations to match the old records.

Is the 80mm cardboard stopdown used every day to record their official count. And if so what date was this device used from.

It is used every day, because the cardboard simply stays where it is [I have seen it a couple of weeks ago, when I spent a few days at Locarno]. Sergio says it has been there for decades. He can't remember exactly when, but it was very early. The word from Locarno[confirmation by email] is that the choice was the "result of several tests done by Sergio and Araldo Pittini. They could find that this aperture allows a better visual detection of details. Even if the image is more 'agitated', compared with a 150 mm aperture image, a trained human eye can better interpolate the solar details, with a typical Locarno seeing. A fraction of seconds of good seeing allows to better see how the spot really looks like, and this fraction of second is memorized by the observer. An 80 mm aperture increases the frequency of "magic moments" (compared to a 150 mm aperture). Several tests were done with different aperture blends in front of the telescope lens, and they found that a 80 mm blend gives the best results." 

Pittini was there from 1959-1978. Sergio's k-factor has stayed nearly constant since 1958, so the stepping down must have been very early.

Also when projecting a 250mm image from the standard 64X Locarno telescope, does this increase the magnification (as seen on the projected image) as compared to normal viewing with the naked eye through the eyepiece. I could test this myself with my own equipment but dont wish to risk frying the expensive equipment.

The magnification is not changed as it depends on the ratio between the focal lengths of the objective and the eye piece. A detail is that with both the 80mm and 40mm refactors the observer does not see the whole solar disk. He must 'hunt' for the spots. Perhaps I misunderstood your question. The stepping down does not change the magnification. With projection it is a different geometry.

If Locarno do project using the stopdown it would explain the difference seen in the Catania drawings which almost always show more detail and specks ( I am assuming Catania is not stop downed to 80mm). The individual K factor for Catania I assume would counter for this except on the days where Locarno is down and very small single specks are counted by Catania. I would have to concede if the 80mm stopdown has been in continuous use at Locarno, the telescope issue would be of lesser importance.

Catania has much better seeing and that explains the difference. The K-factor is largely independent of the aperture once you get to 80 and above [may be best for 80mm] as seen here: http://www.leif.org/research/k-Factor-Aperture.png

 

 

The magnification is not

The magnification is not changed as it depends on the ratio between the focal lengths of the objective and the eye piece. A detail is that with both the 80mm and 40mm refactors the observer does not see the whole solar disk. He must 'hunt' for the spots. Perhaps I misunderstood your question. The stepping down does not change the magnification. With projection it is a different geometry.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding. The question is not relating to the step down. In the few times that I tried projection (which wrecked an eyepiece) I noticed the image of course is bigger than shown looking through the eyepiece. I was wondering if this is the same as using a camera zoom attached to an eyepiece that increases magnification. I have not been able to find any references to this anywhere and wondered if manual viewing through an eyepiece is the same magnification if compared to projected through the same telescope. Just looking through my 70mm aperture telescope today (which I also stopped down to 40mm) the full disk is in view at 40X and 70X. It is the magnification that determines the size of the disk from what I can determine, so if they are having to hunt around because the full disk is not shown it would suggest the magnification is greater? BTW looking at the Sun today which is very clear the 40mm by 40X shows 1159 (larger speck) as the tiniest pin prick. There is no way you can determine umbra/penumbra that was shown on the Locarno drawing yesterday (today's live SDO image suggests little change in 1158). The 70X has the same issue. To be able to draw the umbra it looks to me as if they have more magnification. This of course feeds into what size Wolf would have used for his threshold. 1159 is about 7000 kilometers wide today and is 1/3 of the LSC threshold. I don't think Wolf could have determined a penumbra on a speck this small through either of his telescopes using the aperture filter method.

The projection is involved.

The projection is involved. The situation is like this:

Let the projected image you want have diameter D mm. The distance between the screen and the eyepiece is A. The diameter of the solar image at the focal point of the objective is B [typically 1/100 of the focal length of the objective]. Let the focal length of the eye piece be F, then we have D = B*A/F. Or A = D*F/B. For example F = 20 mm, objective lens focal length = 1000 mm, then B = 10 mm. If you want D = 250 mm, then you must place the screen A = 250*20/10= 500 mm from the eye piece.

But I think the whole issue of the threshold is irrelevant. Wolf never used his observations to calibrate the Dalton minimum data, but used auroral counts. You are barking up the wrong tree.

BTW, SC24 just had its first X2.2 flare 

 

 

So I think you are saying the

So I think you are saying the distance and eyepiece is calculated so that the end result (250mm projection) is 64X. That would mean the actual eyepiece would have a lower magnification than 64X. Have you confirmed this for Locarno? The drawings are showing a lot more detail than I can possibly see through the telescope.

Wolf's reconstruction using proxy records and counts during the Dalton is engineered to fit in with his own count that followed. That was his job which I presume he took very seriously by comparing proxy records with his own count. So his method was projected backward in time, the threshold is an important part of that projection.

 

1158 is certainly one group/s out of the box.

 

I don't know what the

I don't know what the eyepiece magnification is. Will ask. But it is really not relevant as any differences are taken up by the k-factor. As to what you can see. Experience shows that it takes several years of training to count the spots correctly. In the beginning, eveybody counts too few. E.g. has a k-factor that is higher: http://www.leif.org/research/K-Factor-Learning-Curve.png Using projection with a larger telescope, e.g. that of Locarno, the learning curve is shorter. In the end, the seeing is the real determining factor. Both at Zurich and at Locarno, the seeing has changed over the years.

Wolf's threshold is adequately compensated for by use of the k-factor. For example, the 40mm hand-helds with their k-factor of 1.5 [with which the great majority of Wolf's observations were made] already introduces a threshold due to their size that very likely is different from what it would be for the 80mm: http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-Handhelds.jpg

Modern observers [Keller and Friedli] are using the 40mm every day and find a k-factor of 1.1 (to the modern count - corresponding to 1.51 on Wolf's s