bradk
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 199
|
Post by bradk on May 6, 2011 7:21:09 GMT
VERY interesting read by Leif - pointing to a Science paper this year on the L & P effect along with a great description of the effect and how it is measured. www.leif.org/research/HMI-Livingston-Comparison.pdfLeif- Is this your first published reference to flux/sunspot and the L & P effect? It may also be your least veiled ref to the Maunder and this cycle, outisde of this board. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on May 6, 2011 20:43:45 GMT
|
|
bradk
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 199
|
Post by bradk on May 8, 2011 11:16:30 GMT
So no modern maximum? Hmmm....I thought that was pretty well accepted.
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on May 8, 2011 14:14:59 GMT
So no modern maximum? Hmmm....I thought that was pretty well accepted. It was. |
|
bradk
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 199
|
Post by bradk on May 8, 2011 21:08:21 GMT
So are you out there alone thus far, or is the modern maximum a thing of the past in most minds?
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 8, 2011 21:31:19 GMT
So no modern maximum? Hmmm....I thought that was pretty well accepted. It was. Seems to be an excellent piece of work. But I am not sure the conclusion follows. Saying there were invisible spots during the Maunder minimum (which apparently doesn't exist either if we accept the proposition that there is no Modern maximum) merely establishes that certain assumptions about the maximums and minimums were incorrect. How about xray flux? europa.agu.org/?view=article&uri=/journals/ja/JA087iA08p06331.xml"The radio flux includes a large quiet sun flux which is emitted mostly from the tenuous chromosphere‐corona transition region (T ∼ 104‐106 °K) and partly from the cooler portions of the quiet corona T ∼ 1.5 × 106 °K. Conversely, the solar soft X ray flux has a very small quiet sun component." If it does not show the same characteristics cannot Modern maximum and Maunder minimum be better defined in relationship to xray flux? Excuse me if I am asking a really dumb question as I can't even honestly classify myself as a solar amateur. |
|
bradk
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 199
|
Post by bradk on May 8, 2011 23:05:38 GMT
I think there is a typo here: "If it does not show the same characteristics cannot Modern maximum and Maunder minimum be better defined in relationship to xray flux?"
I am also not sure it follows that if there is no modern maxima there is no Maunder minmum - completely different things based on completely different evidence - but I am also an amateur.
|
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on May 20, 2011 7:41:54 GMT
Leif-
What of the medieval maxima and the 400 year cycle of maxima? True or false?
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on May 20, 2011 20:18:18 GMT
Leif- What of the medieval maxima and the 400 year cycle of maxima? True or false? There was a grand [the Oort] minimum ~1000 years ago. We don't have good enough data to pinpount cycles longer than the 11-yr cycle. Most solar physicists would not subscribe to longer cycles as being established. |
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on May 29, 2011 13:59:26 GMT
I hope this ia an appropiate thread for this comment. In 1922, Maunder wrote in The Journal of the British Astronomical Society, 32: 140 "The Prolonged Sunspot Minimum of 1645 - 1715.
"If I may repeat the simile which I used in my paper for Knowledge in 1894, "just as in a deeply inundated country, the loftiest objects will still raise their heads above the flood, and a spire here, a hill, a tower, a tree there, enable one to trace out the configuration of the submerged champaign," so the above mentioned years seemed to be marked out as crests of a sunken sun spot-curve."
During the past weeks, and maybe even months, we have seen a series of sunspecks, but no real sunspots. Now we have 1126, and ?1127. Are these signs of what Maunder was talking about? A number of extra strong spots, against a backgrpound of very minor spots.
I have also seen a claim that the sunspots during the Maunder minimum persisted for several solar rotations. I have not been able to confirm this. It might be interesting to see how many solar rotations 1126 and friend persist for. It will also be interesting to see what readings Bill Livingston gets from 1126, assuming he succeeds in this.
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on May 29, 2011 16:17:47 GMT
I hope this ia an appropiate thread for this comment. In 1922, Maunder wrote in The Journal of the British Astronomical Society, 32: 140 "The Prolonged Sunspot Minimum of 1645 - 1715. "If I may repeat the simile which I used in my paper for Knowledge in 1894, "just as in a deeply inundated country, the loftiest objects will still raise their heads above the flood, and a spire here, a hill, a tower, a tree there, enable one to trace out the configuration of the submerged champaign," so the above mentioned years seemed to be marked out as crests of a sunken sun spot-curve." During the past weeks, and maybe even months, we have seen a series of sunspecks, but no real sunspots. Now we have 1126, and ?1127. Are these signs of what Maunder was talking about? A number of extra strong spots, against a backgrpound of very minor spots. I have also seen a claim that the sunspots during the Maunder minimum persisted for several solar rotations. I have not been able to confirm this. It might be interesting to see how many solar rotations 1126 and friend persist for. It will also be interesting to see what readings Bill Livingston gets from 1126, assuming he succeeds in this. The notion of a 'sunken cycle' is likely a good description. Fits with Livingston's ideas. Large spots usually live longer so can persist for several rotations. About the largest spots: they may still have a strong field, I don't think that ALL spots have decreasing fields as part of the L&P effect. It is enough that the smaller spots become harder to see. |
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on May 29, 2011 16:38:00 GMT
Leif, Very many thanks for your prompt reply. It give me confidenc e that I may be thinking the right way.
|
|
