|
Post by nobrainer on Nov 6, 2009 5:28:50 GMT
You have said yourself there are problems with telescope time and weather....no need to go any further than that, this makes the data inconsistent. There must be times when the best data of a sunspot is not available. I don't think you know what inconsistent even means. An unbiased statistical sample is a fully valid data set. Even SOHO is just a statistical sample of solar activity, it only samples half of the data. I think you would argue black is white....if there are gaps in the data it cant be as accurate as data without gaps. If the word consistent doesn't sit well with you, we can use another word. But if there is a choice of gathering data on full time access basis compared to part time access I know which way I would go. I have no doubt they are consistent in their methodology, but their access to the availability of measuring is inconsistent, sometimes good other times not. And Bob...I am having the discussion with Leif.
|
|
|
Post by nobrainer on Nov 6, 2009 4:15:50 GMT
I thought I explained myself, I smell a rat that perhaps the data is not consistent, through no fault of L&P. Data is what data is. Your interpretation may not be consistent with the data. L&P measure all they can in a consistent manner as I have explained. Unless you can show that the data is not 'consistent' and with what? you have no basis for such a statement. You have said yourself there are problems with telescope time and weather....no need to go any further than that, this makes the data inconsistent. There must be times when the best data of a sunspot is not available.
|
|
|
Post by nobrainer on Nov 6, 2009 1:30:31 GMT
No tricks involved, not meaning to cast any dispersions on integrity but I know L&P sometimes struggle to get telescope time. How can we be sure they are doing their reading at the peak of the group. Using my own testing method 1029 varied greatly in contrast over 2 days going from 55% to 73% I use a simple method, measure the amount of pixels 0-70 in the green channel, then measure how many pixels between 0-34 then calculate the darkness percentage. I do this at the peak of the spot/group. Below is a chart for all SC24 spots above 23 pixels. The data range is smaller but the trend looks different to L&P Then what was the "I smell a rat" all about? Anyway, you can be sure they do the very best. Bill is the most experienced solar observer in the world, bar none. He measures the field and intensity for EVERY spot in the group. E.g. on the Oct. 26th, there were 16 umbras and he measured every one. B ran from to 1702 to 2390 G, and the intensity from 0.603 to 0.932. Direct comparison with visible images is difficult because he is observing in the deep infrared. I thought I explained myself, I smell a rat that perhaps the data is not consistent, through no fault of L&P.
|
|
|
Post by nobrainer on Nov 6, 2009 0:10:57 GMT
No tricks involved, not meaning to cast any dispersions on integrity but I know L&P sometimes struggle to get telescope time. How can we be sure they are doing their reading at the peak of the group. Using my own testing method 1029 varied greatly in contrast over 2 days going from 55% to 73% I use a simple method, measure the amount of pixels 0-70 in the green channel, then measure how many pixels between 0-34 then calculate the darkness percentage. I do this at the peak of the spot/group. Below is a chart for all SC24 spots above 23 pixels. The data range is smaller but the trend looks different to L&P
|
|
|
Post by nobrainer on Nov 5, 2009 13:29:44 GMT
I remember a post by you (Dr.S) in the last week predicting a Guass reading over 3000, intimating some reference from L&P.
I can smell a rat.
|
|
|
Post by nobrainer on Nov 5, 2009 12:14:36 GMT
so what happened to the expected 3000 Guass reading?
|
|
|
Post by nobrainer on Oct 27, 2009 12:49:28 GMT
The 1029 reading is going to be very interesting...
|
|
|
Post by nobrainer on Oct 3, 2009 1:19:57 GMT
Another way at looking at the data (thanks Leif) Its a bit rough and ready as the timeline is not to proper scale, but the trend is clear. But, is this trend to be expected with a background solar reducing strength since SC21 and also most of the data is taken from the downslope of SC23. The last 2 readings are above 2000 guass which is an upswing. Will the trend flatten out even with a possible grand minimum in the making?
|
|
|
Post by nobrainer on Sept 22, 2009 9:23:14 GMT
Much to the delight of Kevin and all his friends, sunspot 1026 is coming into view. One wonders if it will be strong enough, and last long enough for Livingston and Penn to get a reading on it. For those who, like me, are interested, LefifSvalgaard posts any results on www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.pngSo if anyone sees any results for 1026, please post that they are available. TIA I just talked with Bill Livingston. He has telescope time on Saturday, so if the spot hangs around that long, will be able to get a reading. Lets hope so, but not looking all that good.
|
|
|
Post by nobrainer on Sept 18, 2009 10:29:39 GMT
Dr. S. perhaps you misunderstood my meaning. 7 cycles in succession over 100 with 4 of those 7 over 150+-. The graph is the last page of your doc., "Calibrating the Sunspot Number using the Magnetic Needle," OK, I did. But the difference between the 20th Century and previous ones is much smaller than is generally thought, and cycle 4 was as high as cycle 19, perhaps even higher. What I really meant [and may not have expressed clearly enough] was that recent solar cycles were not generally higher than in previous centuries. You can use proxy records to support your claim, but I could also produce AM records that would refute your claim. The important part to consider in my opinion is the time spent out of grand minimum. This is what allows build up of solar activity...its like a massive flywheel, slow it down and it takes time to rebuild momentum.
|
|
|
Post by nobrainer on Sept 18, 2009 10:20:13 GMT
Hi Leif In a similar vein to the questions about the sun's variation in temperature. Is the variation rotational speed tracked ? Both the overall speed and the variation is speed between latitudenal layers ? Have there been any discernable shifts in the last year or so ? Great question Bob, if we knew the real answer to this question it might open a few doors (or perhaps close some). I have attempted to find an answer on this for the past 12 months and it seems if you are looking at the overall solar rotation speed there is no metric recorded. Torsional oscillation or differential rotation is more about the difference in latitude rotation speeds more than overall solar rotation speed, altho there may be some clues behind the data. Dr Hill describes the doppler patterns fanning out from the Tachocline are subject to the spin momentum of the sun, if the "V" patterns are longer then perhaps we can we can expect greater spin momentum from greater rotation speed. What we need is a method to track the overall solar rotation speed, if it varies it could be an important part of the "dynamo" but we may have to think outside the square, there are no fixed points on the Sun to measure.
|
|
|
Post by nobrainer on Sept 16, 2009 10:38:00 GMT
Number of spotless days up till Sept 1st 2009 for 2009 : 196 Percentage of 2009 days so far without spots : 80.66% Average per month : 5.8 - 5.9 160 year record : 1913 Number of spotless days in 1913 : 311 Percentage : 85.21% Average per month : 5 - 5.1 Remaining number of spotless days this year needed for new high record : 116 Number of days left this year since Sept 1st inclusive : 122 Spoted days days allowed before record cannot be broken : 6 Pecentage of spotless days from now on for remainder of year required : 95.08% Average spoted days per month allowed before record cannot be broken : 1.5 It looks like an unlikely stretch, but in may be that solar minimum is in the next month or so, and if so, the average spotless day percentage could go up enough. Anyway, it's now close to certain 2009 will have the 2nd highest spotless day count in 160 years. It will knock 1901 off 2nd place. 1901 : approx 283 spotless days, 77.5% approx of total days in 1901 were spotless days. 2009 is on course for 294 days. I'd say the odds on a new spotless record are about 1 in 6. Someone roll a dice! You can run into problems using yearly counts of spotless days...it depends where the year falls during a minimum. Also the counting method around 1900 is different from today. An example, using the Layman's count from June 2008 - June 2009 we get 349 days spotless. But having said that I agree we are heading into something more like 200 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by nobrainer on Sept 14, 2009 8:34:51 GMT
Was sorry to hear the news Timo...you have made a big contribution in the planetary influence realm.
Good Luck.
Geoff
|
|
|
Post by nobrainer on Jul 24, 2009 0:25:15 GMT
Some have suggested an atomic weapon cannot detonate unless its close to a line. I overlayed a map of all 2000 odd detonations and also checked on google earth and it would seem that they all occur near or on a line.
|
|
|
Post by nobrainer on Jul 23, 2009 16:00:04 GMT
No comments? No complaints? Sorry for the poor quality; the caption reads: "After accounting for the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases, the Earth's surface temperature corresponds with the increase in solar radiation, except during major volcanic eruptions (arrows)." The graph shows irradiance (orange dots) and temperature: paleo reconstruction (blue slid line), NH instrumental (blue dashes). The arrows indicate Tambora, Coseguina, and Krakatoa. Produced by Judith Lean, Naval Research Laboratory. (The partial graph on the left shows ozone versus solar UV varying on a monthly time scale; Lon Hood, U. Arizona.) Just a casual observer here. But the Brochure is available as PDF online. That image is on page 3. lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/docs/reference/SORCE_Brochure_10_25_FINAL.pdfI am wondering what thoughts you may have on the following. We have charged particles at the North and South poles daily with varying intensities due to solar activity. (aurora) So, the sun and earth connect at our N. S. dipole regions. We also, have charged particles DAILY in the equatorial south west hemisphere. Daily examples: >300 keV Electrons (90° detector) >6900 keV Protons (90° detector) www.swpc.noaa.gov/tiger/index.htmllink to 'recent data plots,' on left. This would indicate a 3 points connection. Note that the above location is this planet South Atlantic Anomaly, where our magnetic field is weaker. So, another so called electro -magnetic connection here! It reminds me of Jupiters southern hemisphereic spot. I am wondering too if the angle indicates solar effects or galactic effects for both planets. Jupiters spot is now fading and its orbit is no longer on the heliospheres impact side location zone, where we interface with interstellar forces. The image below clearly shows more energetic values in the equatorial, as well as more southern. This IBEX data image shows a dark sky map with the first orbit's coincidence counts from hydrogen atoms at speeds from about 100,000 to 36 million miles per hour. ...IBEX's two large-aperture detectors, IBEX-Lo and IBEX-Hi, measure energetic neutral atoms as they enter the solar system at speeds from about 100,000 mph to 36 million mph. The neutral atoms undergo a charge exchange process that converts them into ions, which the detectors then measure. IBEX-Lo measures lower-energy ENAs, while IBEX-Hi detects higher-energy ENAs www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ibex/IBEXParticlesShedLight.htmlInteresting images...here is another that looks close. Its the world grid...a theory on laylines etc. seems to line up reasonably close.
|
|