Solar Cycle 24 Main Discussion IX

[af4ex]

FYI,
The much-anticipated movies of the partial eclipse, imaged at 150.9 Mhz and 327Mhz have finally been posted at the Nancay Radio Heliograph site:
bass2000.obspm.fr/home.php

Don't forget to set the date widget in the upper left corner back to "04/01/2011" or you will get the wrong data. (Clicking on "Previous Day" doesn't seem to work, you have to set the date explicitly)

Needless to say, the movies are not as impressive as Jeffrey's Proba2 movie. But just the idea of forming animated 2D images from ordinary VHF and UHF rays is intriguing enough.

[THEO BAKALEXIS]

Tragic seeing at the start of the observation but making a little better after 2 hours.

Two regions on sun.

1140 with a large sunspot inside her.

1142 continous to split. She has tinny sunspots inside.

www.solar-007.eu/

[af4ex]

Theo, great pictures, as usual. Looks like solar activity will settle down when 1142 and 1140 rotate out of seeing range in a few days.

I'm intrigued by your use of the term 'tragic' in your opening sentence [above and on your webpage]. (I'm just observing, not criticizing, your English is not exactly standard, but entirely understandable.)

"The tragic situation in seeing destroyed too many photographs."

which is [from your webpage] a literal translation of:
Το seeing σε τραγικη κατασταση κατεστρεψε παρα πολλες φωτογραφικες ληψεις.

It seems 'tragic' is not the best word to use here. In English it suggests a great catastrophe, destruction, death, great loss etc. But I searched several on-line Greek dictionaries and they offered no other translation of 'tragike' except "tragic".

So I offer this translation:
"The miserable seeing conditions ruined too many photographs"

Instead of 'miserable', you could substitute: terrible, lousy, horrible, bad, rotten etc.

Or is there some other implication of 'tragic' that I am missing here?

Thanks,
John/af4ex

[af4ex]

For-What-It's-Worth Dept.
Here is my extrapolated forecast based on
1) current trend
2) Dr. Svalgaard's prediction of a 2014 cycle maximum

So I'm starting to think we may not see SFI=100 until 2012 or so.
:-|

Attachments:

[THEO BAKALEXIS]

thanks buddy.

[lsvalgaard]

Jan 6, 2011 17:09:48 GMT af4ex said:

For-What-It's-Worth Dept.
Here is my extrapolated forecast based on
1) current trend
2) Dr. Svalgaard's prediction of a 2014 cycle maximum

So I'm starting to think we may not see SFI=100 until 2012 or so.
:-|

I have the max at 120 sfu

[af4ex]

@leif
> I have the max at 120 sfu

Then we might see SFI=100 by autumn.

But in order for that to happen, the Sun will have to start cranking up its activity. So far it has been pretty lethargic. We're essentially at the same level of activity as Jan 2010.

Currently, the SFI has fallen slightly from last week and I expect it drop more as 1140 and 1142 slide over the edge. There don't appear to be any significant older regions ready to rotate back into view soon.

But historically, we can say that it's likely to become more active in the next few months as we progress into SC24.

Attachments:

[af4ex]

This newcomer just showed up. Seems to pass the existence check for "Spothood":
- visible spot
- magnetic signature
- EUV signature
- Xray signature
- microwave signature

So maybe will be "AR1143" if it stays around long enough?

Attachments:

[tsh]

Jan 6, 2011 20:03:21 GMT af4ex said:

Currently, the SFI has fallen slightly from last week and I expect it drop more as 1140 and 1142 slide over the edge. There don't appear to be any significant older regions ready to rotate back into view soon.

Looking at some of the earlier cycles, there seems to be a significant modulation of the curve, so a couple of low months followed by a burst of activity doesn't seem unusual.

[af4ex]

tsh
> Looking at some of the earlier cycles, there seems to be a
> significant modulation of the curve, so a couple of low months
> followed by a burst of activity doesn't seem unusual.

Yes, Cycle 14 (which Dr. S says is the prototype for SC24) was a very bumpy roller-coaster ride.

[af4ex]

... using Cycle 14 as a guide we can perhaps expect a fairly big peak in activity in about 3 months.

I'm basing this estimate on the assumption that we're roughly in the same SN "trough" that occurred around Aug 1903 (green circle) when the SN dipped down almost to 10. Then, 3 months later, it shot up to 45 around Oct 1903 (first red circle). Then another 3 months later, it was back down to 25 in Feb 1904.

The peaks seem to be spaced 6-9 months apart. (red circles)

Does this seem reasonable? If so, we should be seeing a dramatic increase in activity starting soon, if we're going to hit the peak in 3 months.

Attachments:

[af4ex]

[still hallucinating about Cycle 24 possibilities]

So, trying to fit in a fast-rising with peak with a long-term maximum in 2014 or so, perhaps the chart below might be an "optimistic" prediction

But [snapping back to reality] there's absolutely no evidence that such a rise to a peak is in progress. In fact the numbers are dropping.
:-|

Attachments:

[lsvalgaard]

Jan 7, 2011 17:11:30 GMT af4ex said:

[still hallucinating about Cycle 24 possibilities]

So, trying to fit in a fast-rising with peak with a long-term maximum in 2014 or so, perhaps the chart below might be an "optimistic" prediction

But [snapping back to reality] there's absolutely no evidence that such a rise to a peak is in progress. In fact the numbers are dropping.
:-|

Solar activity is coming up a bit. And your comparisons are not too far out. It could very well happen like this. But beware of Livingston&Penn effect that might depress the sunspot numbers [but not F10.7 so much]. Here is my latest active region graph:

[af4ex]

@leif
> Solar activity is coming up a bit.

I suppose you're basing that assessment on your active region chart (left below) over the past year.

My assessment was short term over the last week (right below) based on the declining indices (yellow circle). Surprising, because I didn't expect this dip until 1140 and 1142 rotated out of view.

Your active region chart doesn't quite match the NOAA/SWPC SN chart (middle below, I filled in the data to Jan11). Why is that? L&P compensation?

Another related question: If Cycle 14 is the prototype for Cycle 24, in the sense that whatever made 14 a 'small' cycle is also causing Cycle 24 to be small, then where does L&P fit in? Why didn't Cycle 14 also have the L&P syndrome?

Attachments:

[lsvalgaard]

Jan 7, 2011 18:24:19 GMT af4ex said:

@leif
> Solar activity is coming up a bit.

I suppose you're basing that assessment on your active region chart (left below) over the past year.

My assessment was short term over the last week (right below) based on the declining indices (yellow circle). Surprising, because I didn't expect this dip until 1140 and 1142 rotated out of view.

Your active region chart doesn't quite match the NOAA/SWPC SN chart (middle below, I filled in the data to Jan11). Why is that? L&P compensation?

Another related question: If Cycle 14 is the prototype for Cycle 24, in the sense that whatever made 14 a 'small' cycle is also causing Cycle 24 to be small, then where does L&P fit in? Why didn't Cycle 14 also have the L&P syndrome?

All good questions. Perhaps L&P is playing tricks. Too early to tell.
I don't think L&P were operating during SC14. The reason for this assesment is that the relationship between F10.7 and SSN was as it was 1950-1990. Where do I get F10.7 from, before 1947? From the size of the diurnal variation of the geomagnetic field:
Slides 11-12 of www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf