|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Mar 9, 2011 2:43:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 9, 2011 4:30:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jcarels on Mar 9, 2011 22:49:33 GMT
Hello Leif,
You have an active region count on your website. Do you use Noaa data for this? Even if they are wrong? Like last week, when Noaa observatories counted some sunspots "groups" as one group even when magnetograms showed that they actually where separated.
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 10, 2011 5:25:41 GMT
Hello Leif, You have an active region count on your website. Do you use Noaa data for this? Even if they are wrong? Like last week, when Noaa observatories counted some sunspots "groups" as one group even when magnetograms showed that they actually where separated. I use NOAA raw. Hoping that the errors in the long run will wash out. About the group count, one can argue that one should use the well-established rules of sunspot counting to determine groups [even if wrong], because Wolf did not have any magnetograms. |
|
|
|
Post by richardhill on Mar 19, 2011 0:56:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 19, 2011 6:20:06 GMT
The relationship is complex, but well-understood. First look at 2008.23, you will see a sharp dip in TSI for the sharp increase in F10.7. This is because a large sunspot was on the disk. A large spot increases F10.7, but also decrease TSI [because it is dark]. At other times, there is a sunspot group with several small spots, they still increase F10.7, but do little to decrease TSI [because they are small]. So, you have it both ways. |
|
|
|
Post by france on Mar 20, 2011 15:59:12 GMT
DR Svalgaard The curve of TSI goes down at the end of the graph when F10.7 goes up. That made me ask : Is TSI a good value to treat variations in climate change ? And is it any relationship with D layer of ionospher and F10.7 ? I kept this picture on 10 of march. Colours were important during the peak between 7 and 11 march, 35MHz on poles. Now F10.7 is lower, layer D of ionospher is quiet 0 MHz.   |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 20, 2011 17:58:02 GMT
DR Svalgaard The curve of TSI goes down at the end of the graph when F10.7 goes up. That made me ask : Is TSI a good value to treat variations in climate change ? And is it any relationship with D layer of ionospher and F10.7 ? Both TSI and F10.7 are good proxies for the sun's magnetic activity and so are important both for the ionosphere and [perhaps] for the climate. That they don't follow each other is fine detail is understandable as the Sun is a messy place and the physical cause of TSI and F10.7 are different. For example, if a large sunspot crosses the disk, the dark spot will temporarily diminish TSI, but on the days before and after the spot the faculae surrounding the spot will more than make up for the dip in TSI. |
|
|
|
Post by france on Mar 20, 2011 22:43:27 GMT
es DR Svalgaard The curve of TSI goes down at the end of the graph when F10.7 goes up. That made me ask : Is TSI a good value to treat variations in climate change ? And is it any relationship with D layer of ionospher and F10.7 ? Both TSI and F10.7 are good proxies for the sun's magnetic activity and so are important both for the ionosphere and [perhaps] for the climate. That they don't follow each other is fine detail is understandable as the Sun is a messy place and the physical cause of TSI and F10.7 are different. For example, if a large sunspot crosses the disk, the dark spot will temporarily diminish TSI, but on the days before and after the spot the faculae surrounding the spot will more than make up for the dip in TSI. I understand what you mean. But for what reasons the dark of the large sunspot diminishes TSI ? The UV that eat earth follow X-Rays flux not TSI. TSI seems to be correlate with other component of solar radiation, but not UV or F10.7 curve. So I think studies of solar impact in climate change are not so serious because they consider only TSI not F10.7 or UV. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 21, 2011 3:39:13 GMT
es Both TSI and F10.7 are good proxies for the sun's magnetic activity and so are important both for the ionosphere and [perhaps] for the climate. That they don't follow each other is fine detail is understandable as the Sun is a messy place and the physical cause of TSI and F10.7 are different. For example, if a large sunspot crosses the disk, the dark spot will temporarily diminish TSI, but on the days before and after the spot the faculae surrounding the spot will more than make up for the dip in TSI. I understand what you mean. But for what reasons the dark of the large sunspot diminishes TSI ? The UV that eat earth follow X-Rays flux not TSI. TSI seems to be correlate with other component of solar radiation, but not UV or F10.7 curve. So I think studies of solar impact in climate change are not so serious because they consider only TSI not F10.7 or UV. There is a good correspondence between all of the solar indices, e.g. ihy2007.org/WHI/WHIDMAW_POSTERS/WHIDMAW_PRESENTATIONS/WG2/Woods_solar_cycle_min_Aug08.pdfso if one is important they all are. |
|
|
|
Post by france on Mar 21, 2011 12:22:45 GMT
thank you Dr Svalgaard  |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 21, 2011 12:26:40 GMT
thank you Dr Svalgaard The important thing to remember is that the relationships are complex and messy on a day-by-day basis, but regular and clear on longer time scales. And for climate it is the longer time scales that are important. |
|
|
|
Post by france on Mar 22, 2011 0:34:04 GMT
TSI curve goes up today and "A greater than 10 MeV proton event at geosynchronous orbit began at 21/1950Z and was in progress at the time of this report. Stereo-A EUVI 195 images indicated the source for the proton event was likely a flare from old Region 1169 which also spawned the back sided halo-CME mentioned"
may be protons have a link with TSI ?
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 22, 2011 1:35:05 GMT
TSI curve goes up today and "A greater than 10 MeV proton event at geosynchronous orbit began at 21/1950Z and was in progress at the time of this report. Stereo-A EUVI 195 images indicated the source for the proton event was likely a flare from old Region 1169 which also spawned the back sided halo-CME mentioned" may be protons have a link with TSI ? No, not directly. The protons reach us because we are now magnetically connected to activity near the West limb. Activity near the East limb seems to be related to an increase in TSI. |
|
|
|
Post by heather on Mar 22, 2011 4:14:27 GMT
|
|
