|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 9, 2013 23:37:54 GMT
yes
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 9, 2013 16:40:26 GMT
Perhaps if one hunts around on the websites one may find comparable data. Let me try that.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 9, 2013 16:33:49 GMT
The plots are hard to compare as they pertain to different wavelength bands (1-500A and 260-340A) and have different units (counts minus a background and photons) so you cannot just compare the numbers. I have not gone to the trouble (if it is even possible) to make put the numbers on the same scale, so can't really comments on your question. Leif the 1-500A is the ch2 trace which are in Blue.....Ignore them The 304A measurements are ch4 traces which are in Red. Look at the top of the SEM page for the description and then go to the historical page. One says 260A to 340A the other says 304A +/- 40A. They are saying the same thing stated in two different ways. The quantity measured on the Y Axis is photons/cm 2/second for both graphs. On the historical chart it's a linear scale. On the sem page it's a log scale. On the X axis they are measuring time. On the historical page they measure in years. On the sem page the units vary depending on which panel you are look at. The bottom panel shows a 14 day span. These are the same graph of the same quantity from the same instrument with different scales. The people at USC made this unnecessarily complicated. It took me a cou year to figure out what they were doing. I've been trying to get a hold of Darryl Judge or his staff for the last two years. The fire is pretty much out but I would like to know if they are archiving the data they receive during Cycle 24. One one Figure for ch4 it says 'counts/sec' on the other one 'billions of photons per cm2 per sec'. That looks like very different units to me.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 9, 2013 0:55:57 GMT
The plots are hard to compare as they pertain to different wavelength bands (1-500A and 260-340A) and have different units (counts minus a background and photons) so you cannot just compare the numbers. I have not gone to the trouble (if it is even possible) to make put the numbers on the same scale, so can't really comments on your question.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 5, 2013 17:23:09 GMT
Any chance we could get any useful information from one the mini- to micro-satellites? Could they handle wavelength output? Canada is doing a bunch of the mini-sats. Yes, TSI measurements are simple enough.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 2, 2013 1:51:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 1, 2013 21:29:26 GMT
Dr. Svalgaard: Is that satellite still in storage that could provide more useful information in regards to what is happening on the Sun? I don't know which one you are thinking of. Our greatest hope was the Glory satellite that was lost during launch en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_(satellite)
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 29, 2013 18:37:05 GMT
The sun has determines the temperature of the thermosphere. This is not hard to do as the air density is very low up there (a billion less than at the surface) so the energetic particles and extreme ultraviolet and x-ray emission absorbed up there have a large effect. These rays do not penetrate to the ground.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 24, 2013 4:55:15 GMT
And its position is at the 'middle' of the tine interval for which I have data for the year. To be exact: the average time is also calculated. OK got it ! Now for another question on a different topic. With a low peak for Cycle 23 pretty much established would it follow that Cycle 24 will be a particular long one. Specifically would it follow that Cycle 24 will be longer than Cycle 23 ? (Cycle 23 was 12.5 years long) The 'rule' that low cycles are longer is statistical only, and is not guarantied to hold [e.g. it broke down for cycle 4], but it might be a reasonable guess.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 23, 2013 22:16:28 GMT
And its position is at the 'middle' of the tine interval for which I have data for the year. To be exact: the average time is also calculated.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 23, 2013 22:13:10 GMT
yep
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 23, 2013 1:15:06 GMT
Bill sends me his data every month and I calculate the mean and median as I get the data. For all of 2007 there were only 60 observations vs. 885 for 2012. So what are the dots then ? Are they the average of the monthly mean and medians ? Each little plus sign [+] is an observation. A given spot can be observed several times on consecutive days so the number of physical spots is about 10 times smaller than the number of plusses. There are no monthly means. What I meant was that I calculate a new yearly average [circles] and median [cyan dots] every time I get new data [once a month].
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 22, 2013 20:39:56 GMT
Bill sends me his data every month and I calculate the mean and median as I get the data. For all of 2007 there were only 60 observations vs. 885 for 2012.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 21, 2013 18:41:25 GMT
It probably just means that there were so few sunspots that the error in determining the mean value is large.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 11, 2013 23:38:14 GMT
Still to this day can NOT understand why when NASA is asked about decrease in visible sun spots they keep talking about a double peak ans never mention the L&P dat and theories?! Inconvenient truth, I guess.
|
|