|
Post by lsvalgaard on Oct 20, 2010 2:23:55 GMT
Tnx Leif I notice that Bill doesn't mark off a Blue Mean Dot with every update. Are they designated at a certain number of measurements ? The blue [and pink] dots are yearly median values, except the first one which is for all the early data until 1998.
|
|
|
Post by jahson88 on Nov 3, 2010 22:58:36 GMT
The insights on this thread are very informative, yet gives different views for independent researching. Especially appreciate the charts and explanations.
|
|
|
Post by af4ex on Nov 12, 2010 19:59:31 GMT
Sunspot number has hit bottom ("0"), but the Sun is magnetically active (SFI=85). [red ovals] Has the L&P effect accelerated? How much 'more invisible' can the sunspots get? I nominate AR1121 as the 'poster child' for this new solar age. It was the instigator of those two 'zig-zag' events (with numerous C and several M-class flares) that I commented on recently. [green ovals] ... yet it's virtually invisible to the eye! Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Nov 12, 2010 20:09:04 GMT
Sunspot number has hit bottom ("0"), but the Sun is magnetically active (SFI=85). [red ovals] Has the L&P effect accelerated? How much 'more invisible' can the sunspots get? I nominate AR1121 as the 'poster child' for this new solar age. It was the instigator of those two 'zig-zag' events (with numerous C and several M-class flares) that I commented on recently. [green ovals] ... yet it's virtually invisible to the eye! yesterdays sunspot number was zero because of clerical error ... should have been 48
|
|
|
Post by af4ex on Nov 12, 2010 20:51:38 GMT
> ... should have been 48
Proof of L&P Proof that you shouldn't believe everything you read. Tnx. :-]
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Nov 12, 2010 20:55:04 GMT
> ... should have been 48 Proof of L&PProof that you shouldn't believe everything you read. Tnx. :-] or jump too eagerly to conclusions...
|
|
|
Post by af4ex on Nov 12, 2010 21:06:41 GMT
> or jump too eagerly to conclusions...
... touché
|
|
n0nbh
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by n0nbh on Nov 12, 2010 23:58:28 GMT
> or jump too eagerly to conclusions... ... touché Don't feel too bad. I saw it this morning and 1st thing I did was to go to both the sources of sunspot data on the widgets to make sure something was not amiss! They were both at 0 (two separate files). I have been answering emails all day on this. Sorry guys, I can only report what the noaa/nasa data says. Note that they have already fixed the "clerical error", it is reporting 48 as it should be. Maybe "trust but verify" is a better term! 73 de Paul N0NBH
|
|
|
Post by af4ex on Nov 13, 2010 1:47:27 GMT
> or jump too eagerly to conclusions... ... touché Don't feel too bad. I saw it this morning and 1st thing I did was to go to both the sources of sunspot data on the widgets to make sure something was not amiss! They were both at 0 (two separate files). I have been answering emails all day on this. Sorry guys, I can only report what the noaa/nasa data says. Note that they have already fixed the "clerical error", it is reporting 48 as it should be. Maybe "trust but verify" is a better term! 73 de Paul N0NBH Paul, No problem, appreciate your efforts to fix the problem and thanks for making these wonderful gadgets available to the webosphere! Tnx & 73, John/af4ex
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Nov 27, 2010 21:30:28 GMT
Update from Livingston: through November 19th
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Nov 28, 2010 21:33:41 GMT
I apologize in advance for "dumbing down" this discussion. I am trying to figure out, Do Livingston and Penn suggest that previous grand minimums were also the result of the magnetic field decreasing to the point that spots became invisible, yet still existed? Or else that the sunspots were truly absent.
Or that if the sunspots become invisible soon but are still present, only hidden due to changing contrast, this is a modern incident and not seen during the Maunder or Sporer minimums?
Thank you from a typical layman
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Nov 29, 2010 3:23:11 GMT
I apologize in advance for "dumbing down" this discussion. I am trying to figure out, Do Livingston and Penn suggest that previous grand minimums were also the result of the magnetic field decreasing to the point that spots became invisible, yet still existed? Or else that the sunspots were truly absent. Or that if the sunspots become invisible soon but are still present, only hidden due to changing contrast, this is a modern incident and not seen during the Maunder or Sporer minimums? Thank you from a typical layman L&P do not quite make that statement, although it is implicit in their finding. I may have been the one guilty of the speculation that Grand Minima are like that. The reason we think there were invisible spot during the Maunder Minimum is that the cosmic rays were still modulated by an 11-year cycle even during the Maunder and Spoerer Minima.
|
|
|
Post by ncfcadam on Nov 29, 2010 8:41:10 GMT
Update from Livingston: through November 19th The blue and pink are yearly median, but the blue and red flower (?) outlines: yearly mean?
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Nov 29, 2010 11:30:02 GMT
Update from Livingston: through November 19th The blue and pink are yearly median, but the blue and red flower (?) outlines: yearly mean? yes
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Dec 22, 2010 21:30:48 GMT
The blue and pink are yearly median, but the blue and red flower (?) outlines: yearly mean? yes update from Livingston though Dec. 21st.
|
|