|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Jun 15, 2011 17:48:18 GMT
|
|
bradk
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 199
|
Post by bradk on Jun 15, 2011 18:13:55 GMT
Leif-
Nice poster and great last line.
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 15, 2011 20:28:22 GMT
Leif- Nice poster and great last line. Especially the 'if any' bit ;D |
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Jun 16, 2011 12:11:38 GMT
Absolutely on "if any", but one talks about change in quiet tones first, particularly in slow to change academic circles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ole Doc Sief on Jun 16, 2011 15:03:22 GMT
Dr. Svalgaard, I know you frequently comment as to the close association between Flux and Sun spots, but if the upcoming cycle does not have 'visible spots' and yet the flux shows 'invisible spots' doesn't that make the flux a more accurate way to measure solar cycle activity and it will only correlate to visible spots above a certain magnetic field strength?
I noted in some of the articles that were referenced in prior posts of the just released conference noted a drop in visible light is less than the UV light levels, why is there such a percentage discrepancy? Interesting times resume!
|
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Jun 16, 2011 15:39:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 16, 2011 18:17:47 GMT
no, this is confirmation of 50-yr old stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 16, 2011 18:19:45 GMT
Dr. Svalgaard, I know you frequently comment as to the close association between Flux and Sun spots, but if the upcoming cycle does not have 'visible spots' and yet the flux shows 'invisible spots' doesn't that make the flux a more accurate way to measure solar cycle activity and it will only correlate to visible spots above a certain magnetic field strength? I noted in some of the articles that were referenced in prior posts of the just released conference noted a drop in visible light is less than the UV light levels, why is there such a percentage discrepancy? Interesting times resume! If L&P are correct, the sunspot number is no longer a good measure. We can, however, calculate an 'equivalent' sunspot number from the solar flux. About the UV levels: we don't have enough and good enough data to say anything definite, so must just patiently collect more. |
|
|
|
Post by boxman on Jun 16, 2011 19:51:19 GMT
Dr. Svalgaard, I know you frequently comment as to the close association between Flux and Sun spots, but if the upcoming cycle does not have 'visible spots' and yet the flux shows 'invisible spots' doesn't that make the flux a more accurate way to measure solar cycle activity and it will only correlate to visible spots above a certain magnetic field strength? I noted in some of the articles that were referenced in prior posts of the just released conference noted a drop in visible light is less than the UV light levels, why is there such a percentage discrepancy? Interesting times resume! If L&P are correct, the sunspot number is no longer a good measure. We can, however, calculate an 'equivalent' sunspot number from the solar flux. About the UV levels: we don't have enough and good enough data to say anything definite, so must just patiently collect more. Either way i think it would be a good idea to also count actual ssn so you can compare it with the older cycles. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 16, 2011 21:56:09 GMT
If L&P are correct, the sunspot number is no longer a good measure. We can, however, calculate an 'equivalent' sunspot number from the solar flux. About the UV levels: we don't have enough and good enough data to say anything definite, so must just patiently collect more. Either way i think it would be a good idea to also count actual ssn so you can compare it with the older cycles. hundreds of observers are still doing that |
|
|
|
Post by THEO BAKALEXIS on Jun 18, 2011 12:52:45 GMT
Poor seeing today from athens. Observation only in the CaK line with Coronado maxscope Sm 70mm. Sunspot 11236 is the leader target this time on solar surface. Two great sunspots in bipolar group with penubra. The region 11234 is closed to the west limb. Has many small sunspots. One prominence at the solar limb. www.solar-007.eu/site/ |
|
loly
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 154
|
Post by loly on Jun 21, 2011 1:54:56 GMT
|
|
loly
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 154
|
Post by loly on Jun 21, 2011 5:40:30 GMT
CME RA1236
|
|
loly
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 154
|
Post by loly on Jun 21, 2011 6:11:44 GMT
FLARE C7.7 & CME 2011-06-21 03:25 UTC RA1236
|
|
arjan
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by arjan on Jun 21, 2011 6:50:47 GMT
That movie is an farside cme happened a couple of hours before the 1236 one. It shows in lasco a bit after this one and seems much stronger and a perfect full halo. |
|
