|
|
Post by france on Aug 14, 2010 12:44:57 GMT
Perhaps the hapless and clueless jinki could resolve the mystery for us... You can be so rude at times Dr. Svalgaard. Your behaviour is no better than those banned here. I am an associate of Geoff Sharp and help him out with his websites and research. He has taught me many things. I respect an old man who all his life help Science to progress, he needs quite days not attacks you do. If Simon was more friendly inserting the link of La Terre du Futur (were he read what I write, even if he doesn't want to tell it) on his blog pehaps my estimate would be less knocker. Serious, truth and courtesy help to live in a better way. If la Terre du Futur is not a scientific forum, you are not a scientist too. And more you are rude with real scientists (even if you don't agree with them, when they are older than you, the minimum is to respect longevity of all studies and job they did to help understanding of science) what is bad for their heart (health). But it's perhaps the issue you hope remerbering Timo Nimora  You are an associate of Geoff Sharp, as you were with Timo Nimora waiting to take his place when he died ? You decided alone in your virtual world you are associate or is it a reality ? You dream you are associate and internet help you to attain that, but you have no diplome and you don't work in a academic laboratory as La Terre du Futur and the most part of its members you are an amateur (not a lover)    stay at your level please and respect doctors of Science. |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Aug 14, 2010 16:07:06 GMT
I miss Timo's solar reports. Last report the numbers were lower than the Dalton minimum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Col 'NDX on Aug 15, 2010 11:24:55 GMT
Have we an imposter in the ranks?! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by fredfriendly on Aug 15, 2010 11:47:40 GMT
Who cares. This third grade level "who is who" crap should be moved to another discussion, or better yet simply delete it.
|
|
|
|
Post by af4ex on Aug 15, 2010 13:23:56 GMT
Can someone explain why the red and blue GOES x-ray flux plots always seem to have approximately the same energy flux response curves, but the red curve has 100X more power than the blue curve?  I see that the wavelength span of the blue curve (0.5..4 nm) is roughly one half the red (1..8 nm). But if the power was uniformly distributed one would expect a much smaller divergence (e.g. B1 vs B2). The X-Ray scale is formally defined over (1..8 nm), so does this mean that most of the detected energy flux resides above 4nm? or perhaps the computed blue trace has been filtered somehow? Also the red trace has a slight linear uptrend, whereas the blue seems to have no uptrend. Why is that? |
|
|
|
Post by af4ex on Aug 15, 2010 14:16:25 GMT
... oops, I should've written "Å" instead of "nm" for my wavelength units (or multiplied by 10)
:-]
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 15, 2010 18:32:36 GMT
I have accepted that there need to be adjustment? No, I have SHOWN and argued that such adjustment be made, against many who don't want any adjustment. No new future counting technique is needed nor proposed. Just do it right [Waldmeier]. You are not comparing apples to apples, because you do not know what Wolf's apple looked like. The only way to compare SC5, SC14, SC24 is to compare to an independent standard, as Wolf so rightly saw. The magnetic needle [or cosmic rays] affords such a standard [also as Wolf saw]. If you are so happy to make changes, then do this: 1) plot NOAA * 0.6 on your regular plot for today's values 2) plot GSN on your SC5/SC14 plot. To show the uncertainty of the values. Those two things will go along way to get you a modicum of credibility. If you don't, well, it may prove my point. It's impossible to reason with you. The challenge has been laid down, come up with a better method of comparing SC24/25 with SC5/6 or accept the Layman's count is the best on offer. Since you are afraid of my comments on your website, I'll simply post them here: I'm not 'suggesting'. I KNOW, because he said so. I have read ALL his thousands of pages on this. Here is his report for 1874: www.leif.org/EOS/WOLF-XXXVIII.pdfHe says: "I have used my 2 1/2 foot telescope and not my old 4-foot telescope ... to convert values from the small telescope to the standard [large] one you have to multiply by 1.50 ..." You can see how that works by looking at the Table on page 376. For April 24-30 he reports a Wolf number of 16. How did he get to those numbers? To see that you scroll down to page 394 where Wolf reports his raw data. The format for each day is groups.spots, so for April 24-30 he reports a series of 1.1, meaning 1 group with 1 spot. According to his formula that should give Rw = 10*1 + 1 = 11. But since the observations were made with the smaller scope, he multiplies by 1.5 to give 11*1.5=16.5. which he rounds down to 16 [as I have explained several times]. So, for those days the Wolf number was 16. He used the smaller telescope increasingly from 1861 to his death in 1893. You can see that by seeing that the smallest Rwolf is always 16, not 11, for those years, except for [cloudy] days when he used observations from other people, which he multiplied by the factors applicable for them. This explains the occasional lower values, e.g. on Dec. 2 and 5. such values are marked by various symbols [asterisks, letter, etc]. |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Aug 15, 2010 18:44:36 GMT
Who cares. This third grade level "who is who" crap should be moved to another discussion, or better yet simply delete it. Ah yes, we shall have no discussions except those you think are worthy.  |
|
|
|
Post by farkstick on Aug 15, 2010 19:08:44 GMT
GOES 14 took some X-rays.. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by france on Aug 16, 2010 10:56:08 GMT
Who cares. This third grade level "who is who" crap should be moved to another discussion, or better yet simply delete it. Ah yes, we shall have no discussions except those you think are worthy. Did you recognize Jinki, Simon, Ale, Dalton ...?   did you read what it's written on front page of solarcycle24 ? On spaceweather they wrote a connection beetwen the two groups made this CME. Kevin wrote it's the first solar event since december 2006.  Three CME were observed  |
|
|
|
Post by Kevin VE3EN on Aug 16, 2010 12:38:08 GMT
Kevin wrote it's the first solar event since december 2006. Actually I did not write it was the first solar event since December 2006. I wrote it was the first Solar Radiation storm since December 2006. There have been plenty of things happening on the sun as of late. |
|
roccman
New Member
Desert Rat
Posts: 3
|
Post by roccman on Aug 17, 2010 21:47:29 GMT
Ah yes, we shall have no discussions except those you think are worthy. Did you recognize Jinki, Simon, Ale, Dalton ...? did you read what it's written on front page of solarcycle24 ? On spaceweather they wrote a connection beetwen the two groups made this CME. Kevin wrote it's the first solar event since december 2006. Three CME were observed By how far did they miss earth? |
|
|
|
Post by csspider57 on Aug 18, 2010 0:44:45 GMT
|
|
roccman
New Member
Desert Rat
Posts: 3
|
Post by roccman on Aug 18, 2010 4:02:41 GMT
Thanks CS!
Just starting out. Much appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Post by france on Aug 18, 2010 10:33:43 GMT
May be because of the first solar radiation storm since december 2006 Kevin noticed.
Aurora appearss when electrons are predominant. But the graph SC put on shows protons were predominant. Could we say protons restrain electrons and no green skies are visible on poles.
|
|
