Solar Cycle24.com Message and Discussion Board :: Board Sections :: Solar Cycle 24 / Spaceweather :: Super Minimum! Page 1 of 6 » Jump to page   Go     Author Topic: Super Minimum! (Read 10,535 times) dalton Level 3 Rank member is offline Joined: Apr 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 130 Super Minimum! « Thread Started on Jun 27, 2009, 4:49pm » Solar flux another time below 70... We are in a Maunder minimum, somebody could explain it at the Noaa... Link to Post - Back to Top   Logged lsvalgaard Level 5 Rank member is offline Joined: Sept 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 1,530 Re: Super Minimum! « Reply #1 on Jun 27, 2009, 5:28pm » Jun 27, 2009, 4:49pm, dalton wrote: Solar flux another time below 70... We are in a Maunder minimum, somebody could explain it at the Noaa... You ain't seen nothing yet. No, we are not in a Maunder minimum. F10.7 is no lower than it always is at every solar minimum, e.g. in 1954 to take a minimum just before one of the largest cycles recorded: The correspondences marked B and C are coincidences, but were shamelessly used to align the two series, because such peaks often determine the level for several weeks thereafter. « Last Edit: Jun 27, 2009, 5:37pm by lsvalgaard » Link to Post - Back to Top   Logged rbateman Level 5 Rank member is offline Joined: Dec 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 1,354 Re: Super Minimum! « Reply #2 on Jun 27, 2009, 6:58pm » No, not so shamelessly, Leif. I have noticed those particular times in Earth's orbit where things happen, sometimes it's the flux, sometimes it's the spots, but they do happen. I have thought about why the Sun wants to act up on specific dates, but I haven't a clue. It just does. Martians rolling on the floor laughing at stupid Earthlings trying to figure out why the mouse on a string keeps jumping. I'm on to those rascals. Seriously, if that flux decides roll back down and lie flat as a throw rug for another year or so, then we are in a bit of a Super Minimum spot. Until then, I'll just have to plan on getting even with those impish Martians and thier practical jokes. Hah! Link to Post - Back to Top   Logged lsvalgaard Level 5 Rank member is offline Joined: Sept 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 1,530 Re: Super Minimum! « Reply #3 on Jun 27, 2009, 7:05pm » Jun 27, 2009, 6:58pm, rbateman wrote: No, not so shamelessly, Leif. I have noticed those particular times in Earth's orbit where things happen, sometimes it's the flux, sometimes it's the spots, but they do happen. I have thought about why the Sun wants to act up on specific dates, but I haven't a clue. It just does. Martians rolling on the floor laughing at stupid Earthlings trying to figure out why the mouse on a string keeps jumping. I'm on to those rascals. Seriously, if that flux decides roll back down and lie flat as a throw rug for another year or so, then we are in a bit of a Super Minimum spot. Until then, I'll just have to plan on getting even with those impish Martians and thier practical jokes. Hah! Well, the Sun does rotate and every 27 days we are returning to looking at the situation, so no wonder that there are peaks that will repeat. They, however do not line up with a particular place in the Earth's orbit as the scale for 1954 does not start at the beginning of a year [like 2006] but actually in 1951.507 vs. 2006.100 (the time for the first data point in the red graph and the corresponding point in the blue graph) Link to Post - Back to Top   Logged rbateman Level 5 Rank member is offline Joined: Dec 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 1,354 Re: Super Minimum! « Reply #4 on Jun 27, 2009, 7:15pm » The dates line up much closer year on year. That is what I have noticed. Now see, the mouse is on the string again. Why the fit on the particular peaks during two minimums? Tricks. 1954 came in hot, hit the superball atmosphere and got a slingshot boost and went into high orbit with dazzling numbers. Poor 2008 came in too low, and it's now caught. Can't break free. Not enough power. Link to Post - Back to Top   Logged lsvalgaard Level 5 Rank member is offline Joined: Sept 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 1,530 Re: Super Minimum! « Reply #5 on Jun 27, 2009, 8:31pm » Jun 27, 2009, 7:15pm, rbateman wrote: The dates line up much closer year on year. That is what I have noticed. Now see, the mouse is on the string again. Why the fit on the particular peaks during two minimums? Tricks. 1954 came in hot, hit the superball atmosphere and got a slingshot boost and went into high orbit with dazzling numbers. Poor 2008 came in too low, and it's now caught. Can't break free. Not enough power. They line up because I was sliding the two time series along each other until the peaks lined up. The rationale for this is that the sun is rotating every 27 days so there will be peaks in both series every 27 days and it looks very confusing if the peaks don't line up. So, by lining them up artificially, I suppress the rotational confusion and bring out the quiet times to be compared between activity. « Last Edit: Jun 27, 2009, 8:53pm by lsvalgaard » Link to Post - Back to Top   Logged rbateman Level 5 Rank member is offline Joined: Dec 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 1,354 Re: Super Minimum! « Reply #6 on Jun 27, 2009, 9:36pm » So, you are saying the solar day is 27 Earth days, and the solar year would be 22 Earth years. Not that it has a day, but it would have 297.407407407407.... days in it's year. Now I have to wonder if it has it's inclement weather season(s). Droughts (Grand Minimums) floods (Grand Maximums) Summer, Winter, etc. So far we have had a bad solar month (33.79 solar days). Link to Post - Back to Top   Logged lsvalgaard Level 5 Rank member is offline Joined: Sept 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 1,530 Re: Super Minimum! « Reply #7 on Jun 27, 2009, 10:04pm » Jun 27, 2009, 9:36pm, rbateman wrote: So, you are saying the solar day is 27 Earth days, and the solar year would be 22 Earth years. Not that it has a day, but it would have 297.407407407407.... days in it's year. Now I have to wonder if it has it's inclement weather season(s). Droughts (Grand Minimums) floods (Grand Maximums) Summer, Winter, etc. So far we have had a bad solar month (33.79 solar days). I think the solar year would be 11 Earth years, not 22, as activity does not have a 22-yr cycle, but an 11-yr cycle. The sign is not important for that, a taikonaut zapped by an X30 flare is equally dead no matter what the polarity of the the flaring region is. Link to Post - Back to Top   Logged vukcevic Level 5 Rank member is offline Joined: Sept 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 634 Location: UK Re: Super Minimum! « Reply #8 on Jun 28, 2009, 3:31am » Jun 27, 2009, 9:36pm, rbateman wrote: So, you are saying the solar day is 27 Earth days, and the solar year would be 22 Earth years. Not that it has a day, but it would have 297.407407407407.... days in it's year. Now I have to wonder if it has it's inclement weather season(s). Droughts (Grand Minimums) floods (Grand Maximums) Summer, Winter, etc. So far we have had a bad solar month (33.79 solar days). If a solar day is 27 days, and the solar year 11 years, then a 'solar month' is 400 days, as it is clearly seen during SC17 and SC20. For more details see my hypothesis on: http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/solarsubcycle.pdf You may not accept the premise of it but calculation is definitely affirmative. Link to Post - Back to Top   Logged nobrainer Level 5 Rank member is offline It's in the angle. Joined: Oct 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 891 Location: Melbourne Re: Super Minimum! « Reply #9 on Jun 28, 2009, 7:18am » Jun 28, 2009, 3:31am, vukcevic wrote: Jun 27, 2009, 9:36pm, rbateman wrote: So, you are saying the solar day is 27 Earth days, and the solar year would be 22 Earth years. Not that it has a day, but it would have 297.407407407407.... days in it's year. Now I have to wonder if it has it's inclement weather season(s). Droughts (Grand Minimums) floods (Grand Maximums) Summer, Winter, etc. So far we have had a bad solar month (33.79 solar days). If a solar day is 27 days, and the solar year 11 years, then a 'solar month' is 400 days, as it is clearly seen during SC17 and SC20. For more details see my hypothesis on: http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/solarsubcycle.pdf You may not accept the premise of it but calculation is definitely affirmative. Where did you get that from Vuk?....impressive Link to Post - Back to Top   Logged Geoff Sharp http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com www.landscheidt.info vukcevic Level 5 Rank member is offline Joined: Sept 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 634 Location: UK Re: Super Minimum! « Reply #10 on Jun 28, 2009, 11:40am » Jun 28, 2009, 7:18am, nobrainer wrote: Where did you get that from Vuk?....impressive One of my earlier efforts, result of a numerical analysis. Totally and completely original work (J-E effect). http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/ see: SOLAR SUBCYCLE link. Link to Post - Back to Top   Logged dalton Level 3 Rank member is offline Joined: Apr 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 130 Re: Super Minimum! « Reply #11 on Jun 28, 2009, 5:47pm » Maiby Yesterday i have a bit exaggerated with Maunder minimum...I wanted to be just a bit challenging with the counting of June... because solar flux is today with an average of 70.67(adjusted), VS the 70.36 of april and the 72.16 of may... why the jne's SSN is bigger than mayand april? Strange, very strange... « Last Edit: Jun 28, 2009, 5:51pm by dalton » Link to Post - Back to Top   Logged rbateman Level 5 Rank member is offline Joined: Dec 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 1,354 Re: Super Minimum! « Reply #12 on Jun 28, 2009, 6:48pm » A bit of a delayed effect from the recent fluctuation of the Flux to the sunspots, meaning they don't stop on a dime. We got into this state over a period of 2.5 yrs. Don't beat yourself up, though. If we were in the 3rd year of a 30 or 60 year minimum, how would you know it? Link to Post - Back to Top   Logged dalton Level 3 Rank member is offline Joined: Apr 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 130 Re: Super Minimum! « Reply #13 on Jul 1, 2009, 6:28pm » Jun 28, 2009, 5:47pm, dalton wrote: Maiby Yesterday i have a bit exaggerated with Maunder minimum...I wanted to be just a bit challenging with the counting of June... because solar flux is today with an average of 70.67(adjusted), VS the 70.36 of april and the 72.16 of may... why the jne's SSN is bigger than mayand april? Strange, very strange... Meanwhile, the RI is 2.6 : http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/http%3A....2Fri.html?w=399 SSN of Noaa 6.6... very very diffrent this time... Another test that Noaa this june has counted not very well... « Last Edit: Jul 1, 2009, 6:29pm by dalton » Link to Post - Back to Top   Logged rbateman Level 5 Rank member is offline Joined: Dec 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 1,354 Re: Super Minimum! « Reply #14 on Jul 1, 2009, 7:46pm » Yes, that number surprised even me. They threw out the Tiny Tim SSN's this time. Really weeded them out. Good job, I say. Link to Post - Back to Top   Logged Page 1 of 6 » Jump to page   Go     Forum Jump--------------------» Home--------------------» Board Sections--------------------- Solar Cycle 24 / Spaceweather- Link and Story Archive- Ham Radio Chatter- Global Warming and Weather Discussion- Open Forum including General Astronomy- Help Section- Operations --------------------» Important Links--------------------- Spaceweather Links

	Web solarcycle24com.proboards.com