15 Jul 11 - "NOAA is inflating their Sunspot count by counting specks," says
reader Al Morris. "To get a more scientific count that compares to the old Wolf
Sunspot number please review the Landscheidt website."
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
A brief history on the evolution of the sunspot count
Johann Rudolf Wolf, born in 1816, reconstructed the sunspot record back to 1749
using the geomagnetic record as his baseline. Wolf used this background scale to
adjust the values taken before 1847 to align with his count. His reconstruction
is backed up by the
Group Sunspot Number which shows very similar cycles during the Dalton
Minimum. The depth of the Dalton Minimum is beyond question.
In the 1880s, Wolf's successor, Wolfer, began counting all small spots and pores
and recorded each umbral area within a penumbra. Because this differed from the
Wolf method, Wolfer introduced a reduction factor to his figures in order to
align with Wolf.
Modern counting methods are different.
In essence, NOAA does not use Wolfer's reduction factor, which means that they
count the small spots and pores that Wolf did not count.
This means that a Dalton Minimum or Maunder Minimum could very well sneak up on
us unannounced.
Today, 15 July 2011, the NOAA count shows five sunspots whereas the The
Layman's Sunspot Count on the Landscheidt website shows only three.
I agree with Al Morris. I think The Layman's Sunspot Count will give us a
better comparison with past history, so that's what I'll use from now on.
- Robert
|
Comments |
|
"very good Robert!....I have been following layman's sunspot count from the
beginning....it is my professional opinion that we will get something between
Dalton and Maunder and it will be a single event (still very bad!) and will peak
between 2020 and 2030.....many will starve.... I also believe that if volcanic
activity gets bad enough (strat. SO2)...it could push us over the edge....God
help us!"
- Jack Bailey |
|
|
Count me in agreement with you. That's a great website
which opened my eyes to the fraud that passes for science these days. One
doesn't change methods, and continue comparing data arrived at by the new method
without showing it's equivalent to old data. And if it isn't equivalent, acting
as if it is reveals a blatant dishonesty, or at the very least a glaring
incompetence.
It's like comparing apples and cherries. For instance,
according to NOAA, there has only been one spotless day this year.
However, if one were to count by the old standard; in order to be consistent
with it they would find, as does that website, that there have been about 7
since May, and as I recall there were quite a few before that, as well.
NOAA routinely inflates by 30%, or more.
It's about time someone is shedding some light on the topic.
- Yonaton Hyland |
|
|
Yeah I always kind of suspected that the NOAA sunspot count was too high - I
agree with the Wolf method. I read somewhere that in the past (like 100 years
ago) they counted sunspots differently than now by not including the tiny specks
that NOAA considers sunspots. So I agree here the Wolf method is more
accurate.
Also didn't NOAA have a bad satellite which showed water temps in the 600
F degree range in the Great Lakes region just a while ago and they suddenly had
to take all climate data offline for the past 10 years in shock move ??
That incident really makes me question their climate data integrity these days.
- Kenneth Lund |
|
All sorts of data have to be adjusted to fit past collection methods. This has
reached the level of scientific malpractice.
- Rick Extraordinaire
|
|
|