"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." - Einstein
Dr. Svalgaard, I know you frequently comment as to the close association between Flux and Sun spots, but if the upcoming cycle does not have 'visible spots' and yet the flux shows 'invisible spots' doesn't that make the flux a more accurate way to measure solar cycle activity and it will only correlate to visible spots above a certain magnetic field strength? I noted in some of the articles that were referenced in prior posts of the just released conference noted a drop in visible light is less than the UV light levels, why is there such a percentage discrepancy? Interesting times resume!
Ole Doc Sief Summum crede nefas animam praeferre pudori et propter vitam vivendi perdere causas. Count it the greatest sin to prefer life to honor, and for the sake of living to lose what makes life worth living
Dr. Svalgaard, I know you frequently comment as to the close association between Flux and Sun spots, but if the upcoming cycle does not have 'visible spots' and yet the flux shows 'invisible spots' doesn't that make the flux a more accurate way to measure solar cycle activity and it will only correlate to visible spots above a certain magnetic field strength? I noted in some of the articles that were referenced in prior posts of the just released conference noted a drop in visible light is less than the UV light levels, why is there such a percentage discrepancy? Interesting times resume!
If L&P are correct, the sunspot number is no longer a good measure. We can, however, calculate an 'equivalent' sunspot number from the solar flux.
About the UV levels: we don't have enough and good enough data to say anything definite, so must just patiently collect more.
Dr. Svalgaard, I know you frequently comment as to the close association between Flux and Sun spots, but if the upcoming cycle does not have 'visible spots' and yet the flux shows 'invisible spots' doesn't that make the flux a more accurate way to measure solar cycle activity and it will only correlate to visible spots above a certain magnetic field strength? I noted in some of the articles that were referenced in prior posts of the just released conference noted a drop in visible light is less than the UV light levels, why is there such a percentage discrepancy? Interesting times resume!
If L&P are correct, the sunspot number is no longer a good measure. We can, however, calculate an 'equivalent' sunspot number from the solar flux.
About the UV levels: we don't have enough and good enough data to say anything definite, so must just patiently collect more.
Either way i think it would be a good idea to also count actual ssn so you can compare it with the older cycles.
That movie is an farside cme happened a couple of hours before the 1236 one. It shows in lasco a bit after this one and seems much stronger and a perfect full halo.
