|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jan 31, 2012 15:26:52 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). the closing "img" should be "/img"
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Feb 1, 2012 7:02:39 GMT
|
|
timb
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by timb on Feb 4, 2012 11:16:17 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." are you able to correlate umbral magnetic field strength to latitude of sunposts? It seems to me you might be able to predict the latitude of the first SC25 spots and the latitude of the final SC24 spots if you had that level correlation. For example, if previous cycles had a magnetic field strength within their cycle, you might be able to predict at what latitude SC24 will hit 1800 Gauss and disappear and also predict at what latitude SC25 will start hitting 1800 Gauss. Strong cycles might hide it, but weak cycles may correlate well and it would cut the prediction time down. It would be pretty qualitatie to say weak cycle correlaton says SC24 will end sunspots at 10 deg latitude on XX date and SC25 will start showing spots at 65 deg on XX and all sunspots will disappear by 2020. It certainly would be interesting if latitude of the first SC25 spots was lower and later than other cycles and correlated to magnetic field strength.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Feb 4, 2012 15:03:05 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." are you able to correlate umbral magnetic field strength to latitude of sunposts? It seems to me you might be able to predict the latitude of the first SC25 spots and the latitude of the final SC24 spots if you had that level correlation. For example, if previous cycles had a magnetic field strength within their cycle, you might be able to predict at what latitude SC24 will hit 1800 Gauss and disappear and also predict at what latitude SC25 will start hitting 1800 Gauss. Strong cycles might hide it, but weak cycles may correlate well and it would cut the prediction time down. It would be pretty qualitatie to say weak cycle correlaton says SC24 will end sunspots at 10 deg latitude on XX date and SC25 will start showing spots at 65 deg on XX and all sunspots will disappear by 2020. It certainly would be interesting if latitude of the first SC25 spots was lower and later than other cycles and correlated to magnetic field strength. unfortunately, there does not seem to be any firm relationship between field strength and latitude.
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Mar 8, 2012 20:06:53 GMT
The data just keeps steadily trending, Maunder here we come!
|
|
|
Post by toughluck on Mar 23, 2012 18:24:21 GMT
Why is the variance of the umbral intensity increasing? It seems that the mean approaches 1, the expectation would be a truncated probability distribution at 1, but I would expect the lower range to keep going slightly up, not down. Some umbral intensities in mid 2010 and mid 2011 are th lowes in the entire data set. Any suggestions why?
|
|
timb
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by timb on Mar 23, 2012 23:52:40 GMT
Why is the variance of the umbral intensity increasing? It seems that the mean approaches 1, the expectation would be a truncated probability distribution at 1, but I would expect the lower range to keep going slightly up, not down. Some umbral intensities in mid 2010 and mid 2011 are th lowes in the entire data set. Any suggestions why? Is the variance increasing or is the dataset for a particular day increasing? The probability of an outlier goes up with increasing datasize. So what might look like an increase in variance is the dataset rising faster umbral intensity. You would have to do a regression to see if the variance actually increased. The fact that the mean is rising despite the outliers and the clipping on the top indicates to me it's the size of the dataset that is changing, not the variance. With 10 datapoints, the one in a million chance is extremely rare. With a million datapoints, it's pretty good chance you'll see one. That's not an increase in variance.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 24, 2012 2:34:01 GMT
Why is the variance of the umbral intensity increasing? It seems that the mean approaches 1, the expectation would be a truncated probability distribution at 1, but I would expect the lower range to keep going slightly up, not down. Some umbral intensities in mid 2010 and mid 2011 are th lowes in the entire data set. Any suggestions why? Is the variance increasing or is the dataset for a particular day increasing? The probability of an outlier goes up with increasing datasize. So what might look like an increase in variance is the dataset rising faster umbral intensity. You would have to do a regression to see if the variance actually increased. The fact that the mean is rising despite the outliers and the clipping on the top indicates to me it's the size of the dataset that is changing, not the variance. With 10 datapoints, the one in a million chance is extremely rare. With a million datapoints, it's pretty good chance you'll see one. That's not an increase in variance. Because of the interest in this Bill Livingston is getting more observing time and thus sees more spots [also the sunspot cycle is picking up a bit], so there is more data and thus a wider spread. But notice that the spread is 'upwards' and not downwards as once a spot drops below 1500 Gauss we cannot see it anymore [or it cannot form - we are not sure which it is yet]
|
|
timb
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by timb on Mar 24, 2012 17:12:25 GMT
Because of the interest in this Bill Livingston is getting more observing time and thus sees more spots [also the sunspot cycle is picking up a bit], so there is more data and thus a wider spread. But notice that the spread in 'upwards' and not downwards as once a spot drops below 1500 Gauss we cannot see it anymore [or it cannot form - we are not sure which it is yet] Do they ever measure/observe based on the magnetogram? For example, they have regions today that look like dipoles on the magnetogram that haven't formed visible spots (some aren't even plages) - do they have a normal orientation of the magnetic field that would reveal where the umbra would be if it had one? Can they measure that intensity? Are there ever regions that have greater than 1500 gauss that don't form sunspots?
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 24, 2012 18:09:05 GMT
Because of the interest in this Bill Livingston is getting more observing time and thus sees more spots [also the sunspot cycle is picking up a bit], so there is more data and thus a wider spread. But notice that the spread in 'upwards' and not downwards as once a spot drops below 1500 Gauss we cannot see it anymore [or it cannot form - we are not sure which it is yet] Do they ever measure/observe based on the magnetogram? For example, they have regions today that look like dipoles on the magnetogram that haven't formed visible spots (some aren't even plages) - do they have a normal orientation of the magnetic field that would reveal where the umbra would be if it had one? Can they measure that intensity? Are there ever regions that have greater than 1500 gauss that don't form sunspots? In order not to be biased, Livingston does not look at magnetograms. But it is one of my projects to do just that.
|
|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Mar 25, 2012 18:34:29 GMT
Do they ever measure/observe based on the magnetogram? For example, they have regions today that look like dipoles on the magnetogram that haven't formed visible spots (some aren't even plages) - do they have a normal orientation of the magnetic field that would reveal where the umbra would be if it had one? Can they measure that intensity? Are there ever regions that have greater than 1500 gauss that don't form sunspots? In order not to be biased, Livingston does not look at magnetograms. But it is one of my projects to do just that. So much to study so little time. Modern era data gathering is giving us a feast to work with. I've been watching the WSO Polar Field Measurements closely over the last year. It appears that once again we have 2 south poles on the sun. Last year at this time the old North Pole made a very abrupt swing southward only to give it back. The old South Pole has remained sluggish and lethargic through out the period. Is this of any significanve ?
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 26, 2012 1:17:46 GMT
In order not to be biased, Livingston does not look at magnetograms. But it is one of my projects to do just that. So much to study so little time. Modern era data gathering is giving us a feast to work with. I've been watching the WSO Polar Field Measurements closely over the last year. It appears that once again we have 2 south poles on the sun. Last year at this time the old North Pole made a very abrupt swing southward only to give it back. The old South Pole has remained sluggish and lethargic through out the period. Is this of any significanve ? It is quite normal that the poles reverse at different times. But don't forget that there is also an annual modulation that plays a role and masks the regular track of the reversal.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 6, 2012 0:27:40 GMT
The data just keeps steadily trending, Maunder here we come! Data for March added. Still looks good.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 6, 2012 1:37:45 GMT
Thank you for keeping us up to date Dr. Svalgaard.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 16, 2012 17:47:11 GMT
Thank you for keeping us up to date Dr. Svalgaard. April data added: still looking good
|
|