|
|
Post by THEO BAKALEXIS on May 29, 2011 16:58:26 GMT
|
|
loly
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 154
|
Post by loly on May 29, 2011 23:41:14 GMT
New CME 21:00 UTC app.
|
|
loly
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 154
|
Post by loly on May 30, 2011 11:47:40 GMT
|
|
loly
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 154
|
Post by loly on May 30, 2011 11:48:46 GMT
|
|
loly
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 154
|
Post by loly on May 30, 2011 12:10:12 GMT
CME 11:00UTC app.
By Lasco C2
|
|
loly
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 154
|
Post by loly on May 30, 2011 14:42:16 GMT
CME's 2011-05-30
|
|
|
|
Post by semimadscientist on May 30, 2011 20:30:20 GMT
This isn’t a very scientific observation, as I don’t have historical pictures, but it seems to me that the relatively few spots we’ve had until recently this month have been small yet have lasted for ages, yet this sudden rather nasty rash the sun has developed contains some large spots which are fading faster than I’ve ever known (an example being 1226), and moreover are fading quicker than smaller spots. Anyone else notice this?
|
|
|
|
Post by THEO BAKALEXIS on May 30, 2011 20:44:45 GMT
The game start from the region 11226. The magnetic fields of 11226 gave activity to the region 11227. www.solar-007.eu/site/ |
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on May 31, 2011 2:30:21 GMT
This isn’t a very scientific observation, as I don’t have historical pictures, but it seems to me that the relatively few spots we’ve had until recently this month have been small yet have lasted for ages, yet this sudden rather nasty rash the sun has developed contains some large spots which are fading faster than I’ve ever known (an example being 1226), and moreover are fading quicker than smaller spots. Anyone else notice this? This might be expected in a "Livingston and Penn" sun where the magnetism per spot is low. Because it is low the ability to sustain large spots temporally will be lower and the average spot will be smaller. Leif comments on some of this here: |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on May 31, 2011 4:39:47 GMT
This isn’t a very scientific observation, as I don’t have historical pictures, but it seems to me that the relatively few spots we’ve had until recently this month have been small yet have lasted for ages, yet this sudden rather nasty rash the sun has developed contains some large spots which are fading faster than I’ve ever known (an example being 1226), and moreover are fading quicker than smaller spots. Anyone else notice this? This might be expected in a "Livingston and Penn" sun where the magnetism per spot is low. Because it is low the ability to sustain large spots temporally will be lower and the average spot will be smaller. Leif comments on some of this here: www.leif.org/research/HMI-Livingston-Comparison.pdfBe careful. That is not really about the L&P effect, but about a problem with the calibration of the HMI line-of-sight data from SDO. I think HMI measures a flux that is too low. |
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on May 31, 2011 6:30:03 GMT
True, but in your discussion I felt you gave one of the easiest to understand explanation of the L & P effect and why it is important.
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on May 31, 2011 9:46:45 GMT
True, but in your discussion I felt you gave one of the easiest to understand explanation of the L & P effect and why it is important. ok, that part is indeed relevant. I was focused on the difference between the two measurements which we are struggling to understand. |
|
|
|
Post by semimadscientist on May 31, 2011 20:29:58 GMT
This isn’t a very scientific observation, as I don’t have historical pictures, but it seems to me that the relatively few spots we’ve had until recently this month have been small yet have lasted for ages, yet this sudden rather nasty rash the sun has developed contains some large spots which are fading faster than I’ve ever known (an example being 1226), and moreover are fading quicker than smaller spots. Anyone else notice this? This might be expected in a "Livingston and Penn" sun where the magnetism per spot is low. Because it is low the ability to sustain large spots temporally will be lower and the average spot will be smaller. Leif comments on some of this here: The L+P effect I as I understood it would result in fewer large spots forming in the first place, so when one does from ( as has happened numerous times this cycle ), and when it fades quickly, when relatively smaller and simpler spots have persisted for a half-rotation as recent ones have done, I ask myself what's going on. Another example of what I'm on about is 1224. |
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on May 31, 2011 23:45:07 GMT
True, large sunspots should be less common in this period, which they are, and I think the expectation would be that they would be shorter lived as the magnetism is lower thus they are more unstable. As for the smaller spots, I defer to Leif.
|
|
|
|
Post by breakingitdown on Jun 1, 2011 3:09:24 GMT
ive always been a little confused as to those massive yets that come outa the sun when it doesnt seem like there are any sun spots in that area. where is that yet coming from whats forming it? im referring to the bottom right of the video. |
|
