|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 8, 2010 7:40:58 GMT
includes several measurements of 1084, at the upper envelop where we would expect it to be with the other large spots up there through SC23. Thanks for the update, 1084 looking to post some big values. Is there any chance of seeing the data, it will be useful to see how the 1084 gauss readings compare with the darkness ratio. 2010 6 27 2925 0.580 2010 6 28 3020 0.540 2010 6 29 2811 0.572 2010 6 30 2925 0.568 2010 7 1 2868 0.572 2010 7 2 2772 0.583 last number is intensity as fraction of quiet sun.
|
|
radun
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 152
|
Post by radun on Jul 8, 2010 9:35:49 GMT
On these numbers the contrast and m. field are on up, back to late 2006 early 2007.
|
|
jinki
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 123
|
Post by jinki on Jul 8, 2010 11:44:30 GMT
includes several measurements of 1084, at the upper envelop where we would expect it to be with the other large spots up there through SC23. Thanks for the update, 1084 looking to post some big values. Is there any chance of seeing the data, it will be useful to see how the 1084 gauss readings compare with the darkness ratio. 2010 6 27 2925 0.580 2010 6 28 3020 0.540 2010 6 29 2811 0.572 2010 6 30 2925 0.568 2010 7 1 2868 0.572 2010 7 2 2772 0.583 last number is intensity as fraction of quiet sun. Some big numbers, breaking through the 3000 barrier for the first time for SC24, the darkness ratio in good agreement. If this keeps up the disappearance of sunspots after 2015 looking very unlikely. What is interesting is the magnetic value attained even though we are in a quiet patch. The cycle gaining magnetic strength in the background but not interested in the usual ramp up of spots.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 8, 2010 13:47:52 GMT
On these numbers the contrast and m. field are on up, back to late 2006 early 2007. For 2006-2007 the average field strength was 2333 G. For 2010 so far 2128.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 8, 2010 13:49:55 GMT
The cycle gaining magnetic strength in the background but not interested in the usual ramp up of spots. Doesn't make sense as stated. Try again.
|
|
jinki
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 123
|
Post by jinki on Jul 8, 2010 13:57:38 GMT
The cycle gaining magnetic strength in the background but not interested in the usual ramp up of spots. Doesn't make sense as stated. Try again. I agree doesn't make sense...but that is what is happening. More gauss = less spots.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 8, 2010 15:41:26 GMT
Doesn't make sense as stated. Try again. I agree doesn't make sense...but that is what is happening. More gauss = less spots. I meant just your sentence. Could you paraphrase, review grammar, clarify, etc.
|
|
|
Post by csspider57 on Jul 8, 2010 19:52:32 GMT
This image is great Leaf thanks. Cosmic rays went up and the field went down. no no no The field went down and cosmic rays went up. Back to the cosmic mic g wave background for you.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 8, 2010 22:58:32 GMT
This image is great Leaf thanks. Cosmic rays went up and the field went down. no no no The field went down and cosmic rays went up. Back to the cosmic mic g wave background for you. Much simpler [and more likely to be correct] is an extreme L&P effect. The spots [and the magnetic fields] were there, we just couldn't see them.
|
|
jinki
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 123
|
Post by jinki on Jul 30, 2010 6:37:07 GMT
Sunspot 1092 measuring 87% on the Layman's darkness ratio scale. This is a new record for SC24 which was previously 82%.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 30, 2010 13:05:57 GMT
Sunspot 1092 measuring 87% on the Layman's darkness ratio scale. This is a new record for SC24 which was previously 82%. You are missing the point. L&P are not saying that the largest spots will disappear [even during the Maunder Minimum there were large spots], but that we will see fewer and fewer small spots and that will drive the sunspot number down. A large active region can have a hundred small spots, and those we will increasingly not be able to see.
|
|
jinki
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 123
|
Post by jinki on Jul 30, 2010 15:20:03 GMT
Sunspot 1092 measuring 87% on the Layman's darkness ratio scale. This is a new record for SC24 which was previously 82%. You are missing the point. L&P are not saying that the largest spots will disappear [even during the Maunder Minimum there were large spots], but that we will see fewer and fewer small spots and that will drive the sunspot number down. A large active region can have a hundred small spots, and those we will increasingly not be able to see. I don't think so...we are seeing higher and higher readings, hardly conducive to spots disappearing by 2015? The sunspot count is on a slow climb to a low maximum, they will not start to decline until after cycle max. SC24 is just a low cycle, no voodoo science needed.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 31, 2010 22:53:04 GMT
You are missing the point. L&P are not saying that the largest spots will disappear [even during the Maunder Minimum there were large spots], but that we will see fewer and fewer small spots and that will drive the sunspot number down. A large active region can have a hundred small spots, and those we will increasingly not be able to see. I don't think so...we are seeing higher and higher readings, hardly conducive to spots disappearing by 2015? The sunspot count is on a slow climb to a low maximum, they will not start to decline until after cycle max. SC24 is just a low cycle, no voodoo science needed. You don't think so? This is just an expression of ignorance. The sunspot number is largely determined by the number of very small spots. The large spots have very little weight.
|
|
|
Post by boxman on Aug 1, 2010 0:43:43 GMT
You are missing the point. L&P are not saying that the largest spots will disappear [even during the Maunder Minimum there were large spots], but that we will see fewer and fewer small spots and that will drive the sunspot number down. A large active region can have a hundred small spots, and those we will increasingly not be able to see. I don't think so...we are seeing higher and higher readings, hardly conducive to spots disappearing by 2015? The sunspot count is on a slow climb to a low maximum, they will not start to decline until after cycle max. SC24 is just a low cycle, no voodoo science needed. And what do you think will happen when the smaller spots become invisible? Fewer visible smaller spots would lead to a lower cycle..
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Sept 9, 2010 14:23:46 GMT
Livingston has data through Sept. 6, 2010. Here is the latest plot:
|
|