The Sun Is Lopsided

[clive]

Apr 3, 2010 18:27:55 GMT wd7z said:

Apr 3, 2010 5:56:55 GMT savethesharks said:

Re: The Sun Is Lopsided
« Reply #58 on Mar 29, 2010, 3:44am »

Mar 28, 2010, 8:47am, SDJ wrote:
people say I'm crazy ("astrologer", for instance),


grian: "Crazy? No. Simply a poor attempt at being a scientist. I recommend you read Carl Sagan's 'The Demon Haunted World' especially the chapter called 'The Fine Art of Baloney Detection' Three of your replies to perfectly valid questions I posed failed Sagan's baloney detection kit."

"Also instead of entering into a rational debate you complained that 'some people were getting upset' about your work every time you could find a sympathetic ear. Pretty much as you've done in your reply to Dr. Svalgaard."

"So as far as I'm concerned you have no credibility whatsoever."

===================

The good part about this thread is that, due to your unwarranted attacks, nobody really cares as to "as far as you are concerned."

The best part in this thread is that neither Leif nor SDJ saw the worth in even responding to you. That is a pretty good barometer.

The only reason I even stoop to your level to bring it up...is because they are too distracted with some good science questions...to get entangled in your smoke and mirrors and ad hominems...and so I will.

Congratulations. You have accomplished NOTHING.

Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Yes, and it would be really nice if he would just take a hike if criticism is the only thing he has to contribute. This is an interesting thread and about the only thing going on at the moment. I'd like to see the results when the bugs are worked out.

Well said, I am surprised he was allowed to go on for so long without rebuttal. Chris's comments also on the mark. I for one appreciate your work in this area SDJ and will contact you re the spreadsheet. I am sure it will be of benefit.

[grian]

Apr 3, 2010 5:56:55 GMT savethesharks said:

The good part about this thread is that, due to your unwarranted attacks, nobody really cares as to "as far as you are concerned."

The best part in this thread is that neither Leif nor SDJ saw the worth in even responding to you. That is a pretty good barometer.

The only reason I even stoop to your level to bring it up...is because they are too distracted with some good science questions...to get entangled in your smoke and mirrors and ad hominems...and so I will.

Congratulations. You have accomplished NOTHING.

Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

I've always wondered what it would be like to be savaged by a dead sheep. Now I know. Oh the pain, the pain.

[Bob k6tr]

Apr 3, 2010 5:56:55 GMT savethesharks said:

===================

The good part about this thread is that, due to your unwarranted attacks, nobody really cares as to "as far as you are concerned."

The best part in this thread is that neither Leif nor SDJ saw the worth in even responding to you. That is a pretty good barometer.

The only reason I even stoop to your level to bring it up...is because they are too distracted with some good science questions...to get entangled in your smoke and mirrors and ad hominems...and so I will.

Congratulations. You have accomplished NOTHING.

Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

[savethesharks]

Apologies.

Sure, I learned my lesson early on about criticizing scientists on this site that I disagree with politically. You no longer see posts like that from me.

I also donated money to this site because I believe in it.

If you look at what was said here is that I got tired of the ad hominems [just like a lot of others have] and would like to see the scientific discussion continue.

Chris

[Kevin VE3EN]

I have spoke with Chris "Savethesharks" and the appology is genuine and I appreciate him taking ownership of the situation and his contribution to my website, although it was not needed. I do Thank him for the support however.

Now.. lets all just get along and have healthy debate... not debacles.

[SDJ]

I thought I'd have a look at the comparability/compatibility of the two datasets, SRS (Solar Region Summary) from the SWPC at NOAA and DPD (Debrecen Photoheliographic Data) from the Univ. of Debrecen in Hungary.

www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpmenu/warehouse.html

fenyi.solarobs.unideb.hu/DPD/index.html

I figured AR 10981 was a reasonable choice for the comparison since it was the firstborn of SC 24. It's also smack-dab in the middle of that largest activity cluster in the northern hemisphere.





It was logged by Debrecen starting January 2, 2008 and continuing on to Jan. 7, with no record for Jan. 3. They counted 1 spot on Jan. 2 & 7 and 4 spots for the three days Jan. 4-6. The day/spot# plot using their data looks like this:



Their spot numbering protocol for each AR seems to start at the right (west) and move toward the left (east), and it doesn't seem to be done in reference to the numbers on previous days. That is more obvious when you look at ARs with much larger spot counts. You can have a look at some of their images here:

fenyi.solarobs.unideb.hu/pub/DPD/images/2008group_jpg/

In contrast, the SRS folks only logged AR 10981 on three consecutive days, Jan. 5-7, and their spot counts for those days were 3-2-2. Their loggings of latitude & longitude are also whole numbers, contrasted with the hundredths of a degree loggings from Debrecen, which strike me as a bit optimistic. Debrecen also logs ARs that don't match the SRS data, with designations like 10980n. I believe those are mostly very small ones that are logged tentatively and may be matched up later with formally-issued NOAA AR numbers.

The SRS log is this:



The data fields L-R are Date, AR No., Lat/Long, Carrington Long, Area (in millionths), Zurich/McIntosh Classification, Length in Degrees, Sunspot Count, Hale Polarity Classification.

As you can see, there is some overlap between the two datasets, with each of them also providing different information as well. The key that ties them together is the NOAA AR number, and I believe those additional loggings with the added letter designation are areas small enough to be ignored. There are relatively small discrepancies in the lat/long observations as well as the spot counts, with Debrecen being more "sensitive", i.e., recognizing more spots. AR 9169 of Cycle 23, for example, the largest of the cycle, had 119 spots according to SRS and 260 spots according to Debrecen. Overall, though, they do seem to provide some very useful information that could be used for predictions of future solar activity in terms of region and time.

In the U.S., there's something called "close enough for highway work", meaning not exactly precise but acceptable given the circumstances, and I guess that would apply to mapping a roadway that's 93 million miles away.

[SDJ]

Two more plots from the Debrecen "spots" data, with a temporal component. Filtered to remove the "extra" AR Numbers with the alphabetic subscripts and anything less than 12 degrees from the equator to focus on SC 24 activity. Also updated through April 5, 2010, albeit from the tentative data. These should offer some insights into possible periodicity of activity.





For example, the southern hemisphere activity cluster near 50 degrees longitude seems to be fizzling out.

[clive]

A very interesting graph, it shows the ramp up of the north and the relaxing of the south. Also Carr long. 250 is showing strength and happens to be the same long. of the recent CME and solar wind spike/coronal hole action, I would think this type of pattern would be a little unusual at this stage of the cycle.

[SDJ]

Today's centerline is ~165 degrees CL, so the Quiet Side is back with us, not much activity to expect for the next couple of weeks, with the exception of something entirely new and unexpected, which would be encouraging.

That southern region at ~50 degrees seems to have blown a gasket in Stereo Behind, large coronal hole there now.

[SDJ]

I thought I’d do two more graphs for comparison, with apologies to Kevin for sullying his board with old Solar Cycle 23 stuff.

Here are two plots from the Debrecen “spots” data with the same filtering as the previous plots, nothing less than 12 degrees from the equator and the “extra” AR numbers with the alphabetic suffixes clipped out.

As best as I can determine, SC23 began with the appearance of a small region, AR 7963, in Carrington Rotation 1909 during early May of 1996 as the first sunspot group at a higher latitude and with the proper polarity. I did the plots to approximately cover the same periods starting from the first appearance of new cycle sunspot groups for both SC23 and SC24 and going on for the first 40 Carrington Rotations in each cycle. The contrast is striking, to say the least.

[lsvalgaard]

Apr 11, 2010 23:59:06 GMT SDJ said:

I thought I’d do two more graphs for comparison, with apologies to Kevin for sullying his board with old Solar Cycle 23 stuff.

Here are two plots from the Debrecen “spots” data with the same filtering as the previous plots, nothing less than 12 degrees from the equator and the “extra” AR numbers with the alphabetic suffixes clipped out.

As best as I can determine, SC23 began with the appearance of a small region, AR 7963, in Carrington Rotation 1909 during early May of 1996 as the first sunspot group at a higher latitude and with the proper polarity. I did the plots to approximately cover the same periods starting from the first appearance of new cycle sunspot groups for both SC23 and SC24 and going on for the first 40 Carrington Rotations in each cycle. The contrast is striking, to say the least.

Since you refuse to do a correct analysis you'll not find something too exciting. You'll notice that the spotty regions seem to slope down to the right. This means that a region is rotating about 60 degrees faster in ~10 rotations, corresponding to a period of 27.0 days rather than 27.2753 days. If you use the correct longitude system, you'll see something extraordinary.

[SDJ]

Leif,

As I've said before, I appreciate your discussion of the proper rotation period very much and I understand what you're saying.

The problem is that I don't have a dataset of the magnitude of the one available from Debrecen that is based instead on your conclusions about the correct period. I'm not refusing to listen to you, I just don't have a good substitute as readily available to serve as a replacement.

Moreover, this most recent posting wasn't about the rotations (other than the 40 count). It was merely to illustrate the dramatic contrast of the beginning of SC23 compared to SC24. That's all.

[lsvalgaard]

Apr 12, 2010 0:47:32 GMT SDJ said:

Leif,

As I've said before, I appreciate your discussion of the proper rotation period very much and I understand what you're saying.

The problem is that I don't have a dataset of the magnitude of the one available from Debrecen that is based instead on your conclusions about the correct period. I'm not refusing to listen to you, I just don't have a good substitute as readily available to serve as a replacement.

Moreover, this most recent posting wasn't about the rotations (other than the 40 count). It was merely to illustrate the dramatic contrast of the beginning of SC23 compared to SC24. That's all.

for each region you have a Carrington longitude. I gave earlier a procedure for calculating the longitude for any assumed rotation period, so you do have a dataset [calculate new longitude from Carrington longitude].

[SDJ]

Wouldn't I have to do that from 1853 up to now? I believe that's above my pay grade.

[lsvalgaard]

Apr 12, 2010 2:04:51 GMT SDJ said:

Wouldn't I have to do that from 1853 up to now? I believe that's above my pay grade.

No, proceed as follows:

The trick is to calculate the longitude in that other rotation period.
Here is how you do it:
Given the Carrington rotation number C and longitude L, you do this:
1: D = C * 27.2753 gives you number of days since Carrington started
2: E = (360-L)/360*27.2753 gives you number of days from the start of the rotation [time runs backwards within the rotation, 360 being the start, 180 halfway, and 0 the end]
3: F = D + E is position in days
4: G = INT(F/27) gives you rotation number in the 27-day system
5: H = F - G*27 gives you days from start of the rotation
6: I = 360 - 360*H/27 gives you the longitude in the 27-day system
Now you proceed as before counting up spots in longitude bins.
By changing '27' to a different number, like N=26.85, you get longitudes in that system, etc.
Then you do the analysis for N varying from, say, 26 by 0.001 to 28 and computing a score for clustering for each. See for which N that score is highest. That is the fundamental period [if there is one].

This is good enough for what you want to do. For high-precision work one has to take into account that the siderial period is 25.38 days, but the synodic period is only on average 27.2753 days, as it changes a little bit through the year because the Earth's orbit is not circular. This you can ignore.