|
Post by justsomeguy on Oct 9, 2011 5:51:40 GMT
What are you measuring when you measure umbral intensity?
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Oct 9, 2011 23:29:19 GMT
What are you measuring when you measure umbral intensity? you put a light meter [like the ones that were to measure the brightness of an object when photographing it - in the olden days] on the umbra and read the intensity, then on the quiet sun next to the spot. The ratio between the two is the umbral intensity [i.e. it is normalized to the non-spot sun].
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Oct 10, 2011 12:16:08 GMT
Thanks. Sounds like a great control, BTW.
I was just curious as I thought alot of this was being done "old school" - which likely makes it more reliable.
Is there any way to determine umbral intensity from the SDO?
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Oct 10, 2011 12:33:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Oct 28, 2011 10:49:54 GMT
Looks like you have added a light blue line to the L and P chart, I assume that is the line below which sunspots will be difficult to perceive visibly on the face as their magnetism will be too low. How did you select the ~1400 G position for it? Based on the data 1500 or even 1600 seem plausible positions.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Oct 28, 2011 12:51:33 GMT
I assumed the light blue line shows the point below which no sunspots have been visible. But Dr. Svalgaard will there be an attempt to adjust the calculations of the blue dots to reflect the fact that more sunspots are invisible?
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Oct 29, 2011 11:38:24 GMT
I assumed the light blue line shows the point below which no sunspots have been visible. But Dr. Svalgaard will there be an attempt to adjust the calculations of the blue dots to reflect the fact that more sunspots are invisible? For now, we simply plot the data as they are.
|
|
|
Post by zots01 on Nov 20, 2011 19:46:16 GMT
Looking for confirmations about the correctness of the current sunspot number I tried this kind of approach. Any comments? Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Nov 20, 2011 21:52:35 GMT
Is your point that the solar flux/sunspot ratio is changing? I think that is it and it is true. The question then becomes what does it mean...a low cycle or a coming minima?
|
|
|
Post by zots01 on Nov 21, 2011 9:55:21 GMT
A lot of people are working on sunspots counting. A lot of efforts are done evaluating with satellites the solar flux, and measuring magnetism too. Doing that we (umanity) are finding trends of developement. L&P are assuming that activity is lowering and that sunspot will be less, if sunspots are less then solar flux will be lower. L&P measurements are difficult but are giving a trend. This trend, as far I can see, is confirmed by the low solar flux. This trend was confirmed also from low sunspots number. But in the last times we are counting many sunspots. So the trend in sunspots counting is not following the L&P trend and the solar flux trend. Is that true? if this is true the red line of sunspot number will be higher. And if solar flux is following the L&P trend then his black line will not be able to escape from the red one that is abnormally growing. The proof will be an increasing in intersections. In my opinion that is happening.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Nov 22, 2011 19:51:14 GMT
A lot of people are working on sunspots counting. A lot of efforts are done evaluating with satellites the solar flux, and measuring magnetism too. Doing that we (umanity) are finding trends of developement. L&P are assuming that activity is lowering and that sunspot will be less, if sunspots are less then solar flux will be lower. L&P measurements are difficult but are giving a trend. This trend, as far I can see, is confirmed by the low solar flux. This trend was confirmed also from low sunspots number. But in the last times we are counting many sunspots. So the trend in sunspots counting is not following the L&P trend and the solar flux trend. Is that true? if this is true the red line of sunspot number will be higher. And if solar flux is following the L&P trend then his black line will not be able to escape from the red one that is abnormally growing. The proof will be an increasing in intersections. In my opinion that is happening. The issue is not how many spots we are now counting [we would expect more because we are heading for solar maximum] but rather if those spots are weaker and fewer than what we would expect from the solar flux [and other solar indices] we are observing. And if this trend will continue.
|
|
|
Post by zots01 on Nov 22, 2011 23:59:54 GMT
yes . . . . . weaker and fewer . . .. I agree, understand and like L&P idea . . . .
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Nov 24, 2011 13:58:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by zots01 on Nov 25, 2011 18:31:41 GMT
Thank you. I am trying to right understand the interview.
|
|
|
Post by zots01 on Nov 27, 2011 22:17:32 GMT
Look guys . . . I heard the interview, and looked at other sources too, a lot more detailed.
But YOU . . . . did YOU notice what I tried to define? because that is very easy to see on graphics . . . .if you look and try to see.
But If you are not interested I will sure not bother you further with my absurd considerations.
Kind regards
|
|