|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 2, 2011 17:44:54 GMT
North, where? North pole, just north of the active region? North of the equator? North pole  the North pole was negative during this minimum and now looks positive. wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html#latest |
|
|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Mar 2, 2011 19:53:52 GMT
Bob- I hate when scientists do this. The first line of the NASA presser description is: "...to discuss the first computer model that explains the period of decreased solar activity..." It should read: "to discuss a solar model that describes, based on all our uncertainties and probable lack of complete data, the decrease to the best of our current abilites, which are limited..." In more important news, Leif, what will these guys say? My bet is they call it a low cycle and don't mention L & P, or they claim the L & P effect as their own using other words or data to describe the magnetism change. Also betting they will claim it is a one or two cycle event so as not to get in the way of other "scientific truths" that might get toppled if we are entering a grand minima. (no worries Bob, no referncing the global warming, but instead the invarialbe sun...) something along these lines: www.physics.iisc.ernet.in/~bidya_karak/karak_goa.pdfWell that ends that..... It appears the flow theory is indestructable. |
|
|
|
Post by af4ex on Mar 2, 2011 23:39:26 GMT
A very big sunspot near the equator has rotated into view. Looks to be very active. (1164 still going strong too). Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by france on Mar 3, 2011 0:12:31 GMT
- nice, good data. Did you made curves with them ? Bob or Kevin : on this image you forget the legend so we don't know what's mean green, blue and red colors  obs.astro.ucla.edu/cur_mag_fe1b.pngand what about polarity of sunspots on north hemisphere dr Svalgaard ? |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 3, 2011 1:52:55 GMT
- nice, good data. Did you made curves with them ? Bob or Kevin : on this image you forget the legend so we don't know what's mean green, blue and red colors obs.astro.ucla.edu/cur_mag_fe1b.pngand what about polarity of sunspots on north hemisphere dr Svalgaard ?  about polarities:  the polarities look normal for the cycle. Not reversed. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Mar 3, 2011 3:18:36 GMT
Leif can you refresh my memory on the speed of the Sun's Torosional and meridonal flows ? I remember you saying that it was going slow but now has sped up.
Can you give me rough dates as to when it was goig fast and when it was going slow.
These question have arisen in my mind as a result of the NASA Briefing today.
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 3, 2011 3:49:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Mar 3, 2011 7:39:57 GMT
Thanks Leif.....more tomorrow |
|
|
|
Post by af4ex on Mar 3, 2011 12:19:50 GMT
Two new regions have appeared, "1167" and "1168", with small, visible spots. (We can remove the quotes when NOAA/USAF makes them official). So far I'd say that the Svalgaard SC24=SC14 Conjecture is still holding, with respect to the SC24 Valentine's Day Spike, which I claim to be the counterpart for SC14's "first big spike" around Aug 1903: solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1306&page=40#62513solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=622&page=45#63817Somebody might say: "But there was a 'lull' last week, ending the spike". No. The lull wasn't real. It was due to 'terrestrial observation bias' caused by regions "rotating out of view", they still remained active from the total solar point of view. (I.e. combining the observations of Planet X and Planet Earth eliminates the bias) So, if the SC24=SC14 Conjecture keeps holding, we can expect this spike to continue into March and April. ;D Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin VE3EN on Mar 3, 2011 14:04:07 GMT
I believe 1168 would actually be plage region 1163 spawning some new spots.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Mar 3, 2011 17:23:29 GMT
During the Dikpati Prognostication firestorm a few years back there arose a question of whether the Meridonal Flow pulled Sunspots deep into the interior of the sun or if it was a shallow flow. Was that issue ever resolved ? Or did it become moot and disappear as Dikpati's prognostication was proven wrong ? |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 3, 2011 18:05:56 GMT
During the Dikpati Prognostication firestorm a few years back there arose a question of whether the Meridonal Flow pulled Sunspots deep into the interior of the sun or if it was a shallow flow. Was that issue ever resolved ? Or did it become moot and disappear as Dikpati's prognostication was proven wrong ? It is still an open question. The flow has never been measured to be deep. Hathaway has confided to me that his preliminary analysis points to a shallow flow, but the jury is still out. |
|
bradk
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 199
|
Post by bradk on Mar 3, 2011 18:09:46 GMT
Here is the NASA material from the news conference for everyone: www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/solar-cycle23.htmlIt could easily be titled "NASA finds the Livingston and Penn Effect", but interestingly, never mentions Livingston or Penn or Svalgaard (who predicts this will lead to another grand minimum). |
|
bradk
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 199
|
Post by bradk on Mar 3, 2011 18:11:26 GMT
af4ex-
"Terrestrial obsevation bias" is real, but we should keep in mind that all historical measures had this bias thus it depends on ewhat you are comparing as to whther it is relevant, namely if you are looking for histroical comparisons you have to use the data they did - and accept the bias.
|
|
|
|
Post by af4ex on Mar 3, 2011 18:41:35 GMT
bradk> .... you have to use the data they did - and accept the bias. We have no other choice. As of now we have no reliable way of counting sunspots or measuring microwave flux on the far side, so we have to live with this observational bias. (Those Planet X astronomers just aren't cooperating and sharing their data.) And maintaining consistency with the historical record is important too, as you pointed out. But just recognizing that a bias exists because of a 'sampling error' is also important, because it underscores my point that not every measured signal 'squiggle' represents something real happening on the Sun. :-|
|
|
