|
|
Post by THEO BAKALEXIS on Feb 28, 2011 20:11:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by af4ex on Feb 28, 2011 20:13:39 GMT
M1.1 flare in region 1164 peaking at 1252Z. As you can see below, this region has been crackling with smaller B and C flares for a day or so.  Movie: SDO AIA 1700A EUV 28-Feb-2011 |
|
|
|
Post by af4ex on Feb 28, 2011 20:15:27 GMT
@theo
> I make a video with this flare guys.
Me too, great minds think alike Theo. :-]
Your video blows mine away!
|
|
|
|
Post by semimadscientist on Feb 28, 2011 21:26:08 GMT
'old' and 'new' are relative, of course. In this context, old would be flux of the same polarity as the polar field has had the past several years, and 'new' would be flux of the opposite polarity. Which coronal hole precisely? We don't have any magnetic measurements from 1904, so hard to tell. Thank you, Dr. Svalgaard. OK, I know what you mean now by old and new flux, thanks. The Coronal hole I was referring to would have been CH436. On the 22nd , page 17, 8.45pm you expressed an interest in learning of its polarity. Had it in fact reversed? I know we don’t have radio flux measurements dating back as far as cycle 14, but I reasoned that it may be interesting to find the latitude/s of the sunspot region/s giving rise to the characteristic ( for cycle 14) surges in sunspot number, which being a proxy for flux, (albeit a very bad one when the Livingston + Penn effect kicks in), may allow us a better estimation of how far this cycle has to go. If they were low/-ish- latitude ones, like the ones responsible for the latest pulse of cycle 24, it may mean that it has a good way to go, for example. On the other hand, I trust your hunches as well as your theories, and if this cycle does indeed turn out to be short, as you now suspect, would this lend weight to the theory that cycle 4 was in fact 2 cycles, perhaps a normal/long one followed by a very short one? What does the radio-isotope data say? Thanks again. |
|
|
|
Post by france on Feb 28, 2011 23:36:51 GMT
me too Dr Svalgaard I didn't see the opposite polarity you explain. Could you say us where to watch a view of this event that appeared about 14 february ? And you told us coronal holes are separate after what happens, how did you see that ? There are always coronal holes on north hemisphere, I thought they will not appear, especially northern  Thanks |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 1, 2011 5:19:59 GMT
'old' and 'new' are relative, of course. In this context, old would be flux of the same polarity as the polar field has had the past several years, and 'new' would be flux of the opposite polarity. Which coronal hole precisely? We don't have any magnetic measurements from 1904, so hard to tell. Thank you, Dr. Svalgaard. OK, I know what you mean now by old and new flux, thanks. The Coronal hole I was referring to would have been CH436. On the 22nd , page 17, 8.45pm you expressed an interest in learning of its polarity. Had it in fact reversed? I know we don’t have radio flux measurements dating back as far as cycle 14, but I reasoned that it may be interesting to find the latitude/s of the sunspot region/s giving rise to the characteristic ( for cycle 14) surges in sunspot number, which being a proxy for flux, (albeit a very bad one when the Livingston + Penn effect kicks in), may allow us a better estimation of how far this cycle has to go. If they were low/-ish- latitude ones, like the ones responsible for the latest pulse of cycle 24, it may mean that it has a good way to go, for example. On the other hand, I trust your hunches as well as your theories, and if this cycle does indeed turn out to be short, as you now suspect, would this lend weight to the theory that cycle 4 was in fact 2 cycles, perhaps a normal/long one followed by a very short one? What does the radio-isotope data say? Thanks again. Here is what we know about SC4 and SC5:  |
|
|
|
Post by sunspotboy on Mar 1, 2011 9:15:50 GMT
dr Svalgaard
The reversed sunspots appeared not long after a surge on the northern polar field...
Maybe there is a connection?
Possible to check previous ones?
Thank you!
|
|
|
|
Post by vukcevic on Mar 1, 2011 10:39:42 GMT
Another major earthquake coinciding with this morning’s geomagnetic storm. There are no reasons to believe that it is anything more than just a coincidence. www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/gms.htm |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 1, 2011 13:13:32 GMT
dr Svalgaard The reversed sunspots appeared not long after a surge on the northern polar field... Maybe there is a connection? Possible to check previous ones? Thank you! Maybe, but one swallow does not make a summer. The polarities are however consistent with the nearby background polarities: sdowww.lmsal.com/sdomedia/SunInTime/2011/02/28/f_HMImag_171.jpgPerhaps the region is not reversed after all:  |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 1, 2011 13:14:48 GMT
Another major earthquake coinciding with this morning’s geomagnetic storm. There are no reasons to believe that it is anything more than just a coincidence. www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/gms.htmMy neighbor's cow also just gave birth to a calf. |
|
|
|
Post by skypilot on Mar 1, 2011 16:42:30 GMT
So there you have it. Undeniable truth. EARTHQUAKES CAUSE COWS! Sorry Kevin, couldn't pass it up.  ;D |
|
bradk
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 199
|
Post by bradk on Mar 1, 2011 16:57:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by vukcevic on Mar 1, 2011 17:30:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 1, 2011 18:37:37 GMT
which means that it has no place here, just as cows and calfs |
|
|
|
Post by vukcevic on Mar 1, 2011 18:55:34 GMT
|
|
;D