solarstormlover54
Level 2 Rank
Hot and dry trend Since January. Looks to continue at least through the first half of May.
Posts: 54
|
Post by solarstormlover54 on Feb 13, 2010 3:27:52 GMT
That's where I got my data, and see it shows the 2 spotless days
|
|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Feb 13, 2010 6:00:45 GMT
That's where I got my data, and see it shows the 2 spotless days No it doesn't. It shows two points where the sunspot count drops to zero. Nowhere in January does the Sunspot count drop to zero and hold it for 24 hours. That requires two consecutive readings of zero. A point in time is not an entire day.
|
|
solarstormlover54
Level 2 Rank
Hot and dry trend Since January. Looks to continue at least through the first half of May.
Posts: 54
|
Post by solarstormlover54 on Feb 13, 2010 8:01:13 GMT
so there is no way of knowing if the sun was spotless for a whole 24 hours unless i record it myself.
Solar flux is averaged, why not Sunspot count!
if the flux today was first measured at 100 but was averaged out to 96
|
|
grian
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 50
|
Post by grian on Feb 14, 2010 4:58:02 GMT
Provisional R data for January from the SIDC shows three days with a zero value, two of them consecutive - 6th and 7th.
And those are averages of 61 statons.
|
|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Feb 14, 2010 5:28:14 GMT
Provisional R data for January from the SIDC shows three days with a zero value, two of them consecutive - 6 th and 7 th. And those are averages of 61 statons. Ok then we have one Spotless Day if that holds up. Harping "Spotless Days" is of little significance when the Sunspot count is rising rapidly. This is a tactic used by Anti-AGW Types to alter consciousness. Spotless Days are of little significance out side of pin pointing Solar Minimum.
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Feb 15, 2010 4:12:46 GMT
Provisional R data for January from the SIDC shows three days with a zero value, two of them consecutive - 6 th and 7 th. And those are averages of 61 statons. Ok then we have one Spotless Day if that holds up. Harping "Spotless Days" is of little significance when the Sunspot count is rising rapidly. [glow=red,2,300]This is a tactic used by Anti-AGW Types to alter consciousness.[/glow] Spotless Days are of little significance out side of pin pointing Solar Minimum. Nice pot shot.
|
|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Feb 15, 2010 5:53:13 GMT
Ok then we have one Spotless Day if that holds up. Harping "Spotless Days" is of little significance when the Sunspot count is rising rapidly. [glow=red,2,300]This is a tactic used by Anti-AGW Types to alter consciousness.[/glow] Spotless Days are of little significance out side of pin pointing Solar Minimum. Nice pot shot. It wasn't a pot shot. It was a direct swipe. Type "spotless days" into Google News from time to time and see what comes back at you. I have seen no shortage of pieces that make no secret that they are using the phrase to advance a political point of view. The term and concept has been a round for quite some time and at every minima it is used to assist in determining the exact point of solar minimum. But the Cycle 23-24 minimum marked a dramatic departure in the way this term was used. Now the spotless day number was use to forecast the arrival of a new Grand Minima. First is was we are on the verge of "a new Maunder Minimum" No scratch that, make that a new "Dalton Minimum". And when that didn't work out it was the abrupt shift to "that isn't a spot it's a pore !" And why did NASA count that as a spot when _________ Observatory didn't count it. All I have to say is wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Anti-AGW types bellyached about Hathaway geting to much face time and they successfully blugeoned him into recanting his position. That doesn't legitmize the Anti-AGW Types position. Last Wednesday's Sunspot Count of 71 exploded that myth. Yet do you see the Anti-AGW Types lining up to offer there apologies or at least second thoughts now that they have been proven wrong ? Last Wednesday was only the start of many more days filled with High Sunspot counts. I will not say what the size of the next sunspot peak will be but I will tel youl one thing. It won't be below average.
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Feb 15, 2010 7:24:06 GMT
I don't want to argue with a moderator, but considering the rules of this board, I think that you are taking advantage by directly addressing AGW and labeling someone as a "denier". You may want to invite them to discuss it with you on the Global Warming board. Your rules, not mine.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 15, 2010 14:15:27 GMT
An interesting thread to pop up here So a question - AFAIK these sunspots are still in line with the Livingson / Penn projection of reduced intensity So yes - the _number_ of spots may be increasing but their actual magnetic strength is not what it was as if the bar is now higher for the spots to show. After all the spots like acne are just a symptom of the variance of the magnetic activity of the Sun not the cause of that activity. I am no expert but the solar wind still appears to be a lot lower than one would expect and this is what Svensmark and Shaviv are concerned with in their hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Feb 15, 2010 14:44:33 GMT
nautonnier writes "So a question - AFAIK these sunspots are still in line with the Livingson / Penn projection of reduced intensity"
The man to ask is Leif Svalgaard; Bill Livingston gives him the latest data, and Leif publishes it.
What happened was that during the recent dearth of sunspots, any new sunspot was qjuite a long time since the previous one. So each one was of interest. Now they are coming routinely. I, myself, would like to wait until the equinox before I think it is necessary to see whether a new spot, at that time, was still on the trend line.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Feb 15, 2010 14:54:07 GMT
It wasn't a pot shot. It was a direct swipe. Type "spotless days" into Google News from time to time and see what comes back at you. I have seen no shortage of pieces that make no secret that they are using the phrase to advance a political point of view. The term and concept has been a round for quite some time and at every minima it is used to assist in determining the exact point of solar minimum. But the Cycle 23-24 minimum marked a dramatic departure in the way this term was used. Now the spotless day number was use to forecast the arrival of a new Grand Minima. First is was we are on the verge of "a new Maunder Minimum" No scratch that, make that a new "Dalton Minimum". And when that didn't work out it was the abrupt shift to "that isn't a spot it's a pore !" And why did NASA count that as a spot when _________ Observatory didn't count it. All I have to say is wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Anti-AGW types bellyached about Hathaway geting to much face time and they successfully blugeoned him into recanting his position. That doesn't legitmize the Anti-AGW Types position. Last Wednesday's Sunspot Count of 71 exploded that myth. Yet do you see the Anti-AGW Types lining up to offer there apologies or at least second thoughts now that they have been proven wrong ? Last Wednesday was only the start of many more days filled with High Sunspot counts. I will not say what the size of the next sunspot peak will be but I will tel youl one thing. It won't be below average. David Hathaway is a good scientist, and he did not change his view of SC24 because of anything that know-nothing "anti-AGW types" said. He changed his view because of the behavior of the Sun, which deeply shook his fundamental ideas about its inner dynamics. I have a quote from him in my forthcoming book that reveals the thoughts of an admirably modest man. As for whether a quieter Sun may have any influence on Earth's ocean-atmosphere system in the coming decades, I suspect that not one of us here can say with any level of assurance one way or the other. Last I checked, Abdussamatov and Hathaway were in agreement that SC25 should be weak.
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Feb 15, 2010 16:53:15 GMT
Most skeptics I follow were, when talking about sunspots and solar activity, responding to the great deal of hype predicting a dramatic and powerful solar cycle. We may or may not have a strong solar cycle maximum, but there is no reasoned way to deny that we had a deep and unusually strong and lengthy minimum. One that was not at all predicted by most US scientists. Since it is not clear what the connection between sunspots and climate is, perhpas our AGW true believer friends can hold back just a bit in blaming skeptics for all of they hype?
|
|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Feb 15, 2010 18:50:43 GMT
I don't want to argue with a moderator, but considering the rules of this board, I think that you are taking advantage by directly addressing AGW I can see how someone would say that but from the tenor and drift of this thread it was either move it or poop can it. and labeling someone as a "denier". Your the one with the moniker calling into question the intelligence who focuses on carbon emissions as the cause of global warming. You point to cyclical variations in Solar Cycle as the cause. Yet Leif Svalgaard a physicist who has studied TSI found such variations are so low as to have little effect on Global Warming. Hmmmmm
|
|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Feb 15, 2010 19:34:27 GMT
David Hathaway is a good scientist, and he did not change his view of SC24 because of anything that know-nothing "anti-AGW types" said. He changed his view because of the behavior of the Sun, which deeply shook his fundamental ideas about its inner dynamics. I have a quote from him in my forthcoming book that reveals the thoughts of an admirably modest man. It seems to me I saw Leif Svalgaard use the exact same worse to describe David Hathaway when he was attacked by Anti-AGW Types in the Solar Forum about a year ago. Despite what you might think David Hathaway did not encounter a miraculous revealtion that lead to an epiphany. He actually modified his conclusions very gradually over several iterations. And now actual solar events that have taken place on the sun over the last 2 months in general and in the last week in particular point in the opposite direction. It may be early but the numbers don't lie and if this trend continues they will certainly disprove the consensus of NASA's Panel.....once again. In science "views" and "opinions" count for nothing. It is what you can prove that matters and whether you results can repeated by others. This is why many scientists refuse to get involved in the Solar Cycle prediction game. Last I checked, Abdussamatov and Hathaway were in agreement that SC25 should be weak. So now his predictions gain credibility ? Why do you want to change the subject to Cycle 25 ? First you have to hit Cycle 24.
|
|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Feb 15, 2010 19:40:47 GMT
nautonnier writes "So a question - AFAIK these sunspots are still in line with the Livingson / Penn projection of reduced intensity" The man to ask is Leif Svalgaard; Bill Livingston gives him the latest data, and Leif publishes it. What happened was that during the recent dearth of sunspots, any new sunspot was qjuite a long time since the previous one. So each one was of interest. Now they are coming routinely. I, myself, would like to wait until the equinox before I think it is necessary to see whether a new spot, at that time, was still on the trend line. Jim Leif has been asked about Livingston's findings several times over the last few weeks and has responded by say that Livingston is choosing to remain mum at this time. A board member, Radun, who makes his own measurements sayscomparing December Spots to WSO Maps shows they were fractionally higher.
|
|