|
|
Post by Kevin VE3EN on Aug 7, 2010 18:37:48 GMT
M1.0 Solar Flare around Sunspot 1093 taking place at this time.
|
|
|
|
Post by ehedquist on Aug 9, 2010 16:07:59 GMT
Has the media not seen the corrolation between the solar and flair cycles with the hurracane activity?? See this web site and the cylce seems to correspond perfectly. www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/ |
|
|
|
Post by fredfriendly on Aug 9, 2010 16:35:03 GMT
|
|
mptc
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by mptc on Aug 9, 2010 17:12:52 GMT
Just a question from a novice. I have been following Solar Cycle 24.com for awhile now. I noticed an uptick in sunspot numbers and solar flux. How much of this is increase sun activity and how much is due to enhanced SDO imagery which replaced the SOHO MDI?
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 9, 2010 17:19:22 GMT
Just a question from a novice. I have been following Solar Cycle 24.com for awhile now. I noticed an uptick in sunspot numbers and solar flux. How much of this is increase sun activity and how much is due to enhanced SDO imagery which replaced the SOHO MDI? None of the uptick is due to improved imagery. |
|
|
|
Post by fredfriendly on Aug 10, 2010 7:57:51 GMT
Just a question from a novice. I have been following Solar Cycle 24.com for awhile now. I noticed an uptick in sunspot numbers and solar flux. How much of this is increase sun activity and how much is due to enhanced SDO imagery which replaced the SOHO MDI? Leif is of course correct, that said the current sunspot number is not a perfect correlation to prior numbers as we have changed the way the number is counted, and thus the different counts. A discussion of the sunspot number and and how different agencies, and people, determine can be found here: www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50scroll down when you get there. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 10, 2010 9:02:29 GMT
Just a question from a novice. I have been following Solar Cycle 24.com for awhile now. I noticed an uptick in sunspot numbers and solar flux. How much of this is increase sun activity and how much is due to enhanced SDO imagery which replaced the SOHO MDI? Leif is of course correct, that said the current sunspot number is not a perfect correlation to prior numbers as we have changed the way the number is counted, and thus the different counts. A discussion of the sunspot number and and how different agencies, and people, determine can be found here: www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50scroll down when you get there. We changed the way sunspots were counted way back in 1882. 17 years of counting both ways have shown that there is a simple proportionality between the old count and the new count, namely old = 0.6 * new. The discussion at landscheidt is incorrect and invalid. |
|
jinki
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 123
|
Post by jinki on Aug 10, 2010 12:38:23 GMT
Leif is of course correct, that said the current sunspot number is not a perfect correlation to prior numbers as we have changed the way the number is counted, and thus the different counts. A discussion of the sunspot number and and how different agencies, and people, determine can be found here: www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50scroll down when you get there. We changed the way sunspots were counted way back in 1882. 17 years of counting both ways have shown that there is a simple proportionality between the old count and the new count, namely old = 0.6 * new. The discussion at landscheidt is incorrect and invalid. Total rubbish...when will you end this charade. Your own paper at arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1003/1003.4666v1.pdf testifies differently. Waldmeier also used the .6 reduction.
"Waldmeier's counts are 22% higher than Wolfer and Brunner's, for the same amplitude of the Diurnal Geomagnetic Variation (Figure 11). This is close to the size of the discontinuity deduced from Figure 10. As SIDC took pains to maintain continuity with Waldmeier, the jump carries over
to modern SSN values. "If this is wrong, then your attempt to flatten the TSI record is worthless. Take your pick? |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 10, 2010 13:51:15 GMT
We changed the way sunspots were counted way back in 1882. 17 years of counting both ways have shown that there is a simple proportionality between the old count and the new count, namely old = 0.6 * new. The discussion at landscheidt is incorrect and invalid. Total rubbish...when will you end this charade. Your own paper arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1003/1003.4666v1.pdf testifies differently. Waldmeier also used the .6 reduction.
"Waldmeier's counts are 22% higher than Wolfer and Brunner's, for the same amplitude of the Diurnal Geomagnetic Variation (Figure 11). This is close to the size of the discontinuity deduced from Figure 10. As SIDC took pains to maintain continuity with Waldmeier, the jump carries over
to modern SSN values. "If this is wrong, then your attempt to flatten the TSI record is worthless. Take your pick? Everybody since Wolfer in 1882 uses the 0.6 factor. [except NOAA]. The 0.6 thing is completely irrelevant and is just like converting from Fahrenheit to Centigrade. Waldmeier was probably over-counting the number of groups [using his own classification ( www.leif.org/EOS/1989JALPO-33.pdf ) although the precise nature of the jump is not yet clear. The count the last decade or so is too small, not too large as you claim. And it would be nice if you dared use your real name rather than the pathetic 'jinki'. The significant element of correct sunspot counting is NOT to introduce a bias beforehand by having a threshold for counting a spot. This Wolfer [and everybody else] saw so clearly way back in the 1880s. Whether or not you multiply by 0.6 to align yourself with Wolf's number is irrelevant. To make an honest comparison between NOAA and the rest you should multiply NOAA values by 0.6, instead of pretending that they use a different method [they do not]. |
|
jinki
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 123
|
Post by jinki on Aug 10, 2010 14:07:16 GMT
Total rubbish...when will you end this charade. Your own paper arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1003/1003.4666v1.pdf testifies differently. Waldmeier also used the .6 reduction.
"Waldmeier's counts are 22% higher than Wolfer and Brunner's, for the same amplitude of the Diurnal Geomagnetic Variation (Figure 11). This is close to the size of the discontinuity deduced from Figure 10. As SIDC took pains to maintain continuity with Waldmeier, the jump carries over
to modern SSN values. "If this is wrong, then your attempt to flatten the TSI record is worthless. Take your pick? Everybody since Wolfer in 1882 uses the 0.6 factor. [except NOAA]. The 0.6 thing is completely irrelevant and is just like converting from Fahrenheit to Centigrade. Waldmeier was probably over-counting the number of groups [using his own classification ( www.leif.org/EOS/1989JALPO-33.pdf ) although the precise nature of the jump is not yet clear. The count the last decade or so is too small, not too large as you claim. And it would be nice if you dared use your real name rather than the pathetic 'jinki'. The significant element of correct sunspot counting is NOT to introduce a bias beforehand by having a threshold for counting a spot. This Wolfer [and everybody else] saw so clearly way back in the 1880s. Whether or not you multiply by 0.6 to align yourself with Wolf's number is irrelevant. To make an honest comparison between NOAA and the rest you should multiply NOAA values by 0.6, instead of pretending that they use a different method [they do not]. One question. Is today's SIDC sunspot count higher than what Wolf or even Wolfer would have counted if alive today using their methods of the past? I am not interested in your claim that the current sunspot record is lower than your manufactured F10.7 record. Just answer the pure question. |
|
jinki
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 123
|
Post by jinki on Aug 10, 2010 14:24:11 GMT
And it would be nice if you dared use your real name rather than the pathetic 'jinki'. There have been a lot of people who disagree with you that have been banned from this forum and others, this is your method. Don't think for one minute that will stop the pursuit of scientific advancement. You have set up this scenario on this and other forums, but the tide is turning. Free speech is the backbone of the internet, don't ever think you can stop it. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 10, 2010 14:24:34 GMT
Everybody since Wolfer in 1882 uses the 0.6 factor. [except NOAA]. The 0.6 thing is completely irrelevant and is just like converting from Fahrenheit to Centigrade. Waldmeier was probably over-counting the number of groups [using his own classification ( www.leif.org/EOS/1989JALPO-33.pdf ) although the precise nature of the jump is not yet clear. The count the last decade or so is too small, not too large as you claim. And it would be nice if you dared use your real name rather than the pathetic 'jinki'. The significant element of correct sunspot counting is NOT to introduce a bias beforehand by having a threshold for counting a spot. This Wolfer [and everybody else] saw so clearly way back in the 1880s. Whether or not you multiply by 0.6 to align yourself with Wolf's number is irrelevant. To make an honest comparison between NOAA and the rest you should multiply NOAA values by 0.6, instead of pretending that they use a different method [they do not]. One question. Is today's SIDC sunspot count higher than what Wolf or even Wolfer would have counted if alive today using their methods of the past? I am not interested in your claim that the current sunspot record is lower than your manufactured F10.7 record. Just answer the pure question. You cannot compare directly Wolf and Wolfer as they had different counting technique. To make a comparison you first have to either scale Wolf up or Wolfer down. Let us scale Wolfer down the way he himself did it by multiplying by 0.6, then Wolf and Wolfer can be compared. Now Waldmeier introduced a jump in 1945. We can either scale earlier values up or scale Waldmeier down. Let's scale the early [Wolfer] values up to be comparable to Waldmeier. When SIDC took over they strove to maintain Waldmeier's scale, so during the 1990s SIDC would have been comparable to Wolf and Wolfer, both scaled correctly. Since 1st August, 2001, SIDC counts have been 12% lower than everybody else's, so SIDC is now too low, just on procedural grounds. Here is a comparison NOAA-SIDC:  The pink and green dots show SIDC/NOAA and should cluster around the famous 0.6. Note the green dots are systematically lower. And a comparison with many other organizations:  So, yes, SIDC is too low compared to what Wolf and Wolfer would have counted [properly scaled]. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 10, 2010 14:28:35 GMT
And it would be nice if you dared use your real name rather than the pathetic 'jinki'. There have been a lot of people who disagree with you that have been banned from this forum and others, this is your method. Don't think for one minute that will stop the pursuit of scientific advancement. You have set up this scenario on this and other forums, but the tide is turning. Free speech is the backbone of the internet, don't ever think you can stop it. People were banned for a reason [bad behavior]. |
|
jinki
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 123
|
Post by jinki on Aug 10, 2010 14:33:39 GMT
There have been a lot of people who disagree with you that have been banned from this forum and others, this is your method. Don't think for one minute that will stop the pursuit of scientific advancement. You have set up this scenario on this and other forums, but the tide is turning. Free speech is the backbone of the internet, don't ever think you can stop it. People were banned for a reason [bad behavior]. Show me the bad behaviour in here....talk to Kevin, I am quite happy to come back under my real name. |
|
jinki
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 123
|
Post by jinki on Aug 10, 2010 14:40:28 GMT
One question. Is today's SIDC sunspot count higher than what Wolf or even Wolfer would have counted if alive today using their methods of the past? I am not interested in your claim that the current sunspot record is lower than your manufactured F10.7 record. Just answer the pure question. You cannot compare directly Wolf and Wolfer as they had different counting technique. To make a comparison you first have to either scale Wolf up or Wolfer down. Let us scale Wolfer down the way he himself did it by multiplying by 0.6, then Wolf and Wolfer can be compared. Now Waldmeier introduced a jump in 1945. We can either scale earlier values up or scale Waldmeier down. Let's scale the early [Wolfer] values up to be comparable to Waldmeier. When SIDC took over they strove to maintain Waldmeier's scale, so during the 1990s SIDC would have been comparable to Wolf and Wolfer, both scaled correctly. Since 1st August, 2001, SIDC counts have been 12% lower than everybody else's, so SIDC is now too low, just on procedural grounds. This the main point which you agree on. That jump of 22% on your own figures is why the Wolf/Wolfer count is different from today. This is the point fredfriendly is making and why your comment of "The discussion at landscheidt is incorrect and invalid" is wrong or even rubbish? |
|
