|
Post by justsomeguy on Jan 19, 2012 16:35:45 GMT
The new data seems to strongly support the decline. Any thoughts on publishing?
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jan 19, 2012 20:50:14 GMT
The new data seems to strongly support the decline. Any thoughts on publishing? latest plot: every time we submit for publication, it is rejected
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Jan 20, 2012 0:24:50 GMT
How can one of the most exciting trends in recent solar science not be clamored for? It is just amazing to me.
I hope it is not the politics of science or bias against particular findings. So sorry to hear that.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jan 21, 2012 1:47:12 GMT
How can one of the most exciting trends in recent solar science not be clamored for? It is just amazing to me. I hope it is not the politics of science or bias against particular findings. So sorry to hear that. if Livingston is right, the world will take notice in a few years. We can wait.
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Jan 21, 2012 17:17:28 GMT
Are the other authors/presenters that show a possible minima coming having the same publication issues?
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jan 21, 2012 17:59:36 GMT
Are the other authors/presenters that show a possible minima coming having the same publication issues? they are not even trying ;D
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jan 24, 2012 5:44:18 GMT
When the presentation is submitted for publication is a reason given for the rejection? After following this for the last few years and the fact it involves somebody as prestigious as Leif I would have thought that more or less every person activing observing the sun must be anticipating the 'public' publication of the data. What would be published that is not already public information and well known? Are their typical precedents for this kind of well known data, that is followed and anticipated by presumably nearly everybody, that does not get published? Or is it only Bill livingstones eyeballs telling us what the data is and therefore some understandable reasons as to why presently there is reluctance to put it in print? The latest rejection by Nature was very lame: it went something like this: "you have already, several years ago, published the decline elsewhere. This latest paper is just an update with more data, i.e. just a further quantification of the effect. We are looking for papers that present qualitative breakthroughs, not merely updates of old results."
|
|
|
Post by ncfcadam on Jan 24, 2012 11:51:50 GMT
What's the total count of spots measured so far? I think in 2010 it was 13,000 or so.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 24, 2012 11:55:18 GMT
When the presentation is submitted for publication is a reason given for the rejection? After following this for the last few years and the fact it involves somebody as prestigious as Leif I would have thought that more or less every person activing observing the sun must be anticipating the 'public' publication of the data. What would be published that is not already public information and well known? Are their typical precedents for this kind of well known data, that is followed and anticipated by presumably nearly everybody, that does not get published? Or is it only Bill livingstones eyeballs telling us what the data is and therefore some understandable reasons as to why presently there is reluctance to put it in print? The latest rejection by Nature was very lame: it went something like this: "you have already, several years ago, published the decline elsewhere. This latest paper is just an update with more data, i.e. just a further quantification of the effect. We are looking for papers that present qualitative breakthroughs, not merely updates of old results." That is a realllllllllllllly lame excuse. Unbelieveable.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jan 24, 2012 16:20:54 GMT
What's the total count of spots measured so far? I think in 2010 it was 13,000 or so. Total count 2754 spots. Average field 2211 G. First half has average 2341 G. Last half average 2081 G.
|
|
|
Post by Ole Doc Sief on Jan 30, 2012 4:31:32 GMT
It will be interesting how their tune changes when the upcoming Minimum arrives!
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jan 30, 2012 5:57:19 GMT
It will be interesting how their tune changes when the upcoming Minimum arrives! why should it change? L&P are reporting their observations, which cannot be changed.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jan 30, 2012 15:50:55 GMT
The latest rejection by Nature was very lame: it went something like this: "you have already, several years ago, published the decline elsewhere. This latest paper is just an update with more data, i.e. just a further quantification of the effect. We are looking for papers that present qualitative breakthroughs, not merely updates of old results." Thanks for letting me know. That seems a bit odd! Evidently Nature readers need to be very well read, to learn about things that are new but were published first elsewhere. However, am i right in thinking that you are expecting the ultimate result of L and P, if a minimum does happen, is going to confirm the suns energy reaching Earth will be more or less the same thru a sun spot minimum, so that no great conclusions can be drawn from periods like the Dalton minimum? Essentially: yes
|
|
|
Post by norpag on Jan 30, 2012 19:21:48 GMT
Iceskater. The TSI is probably not the key metric for considering the effect of a solar minimum on earth. I would suggest that the GCR count may be more important probably via the cloud cover and albedo. The GCR max lags the sunspot minimum by about 1 year. Go to cosmicrays.oulu.fi/#database and plot the data with a start date of 1998/02/15 which is the 22-23 GCR max for the 22-23 minimum. Notice current relative high GCR count 2 years into 24 cf 2 years into 23. Can anyone tell me how to post images here? its not obvious. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 31, 2012 13:29:47 GMT
One way to post an image is to upload it to a photobucket account (free) and then reference the photobucket address in your post here with " " on both sides of the address (without the quotation marks).
|
|