|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Mar 23, 2013 0:13:14 GMT
Bill sends me his data every month and I calculate the mean and median as I get the data. For all of 2007 there were only 60 observations vs. 885 for 2012. So what are the dots then ? Are they the average of the monthly mean and medians ? |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 23, 2013 1:15:06 GMT
Bill sends me his data every month and I calculate the mean and median as I get the data. For all of 2007 there were only 60 observations vs. 885 for 2012. So what are the dots then ? Are they the average of the monthly mean and medians ? Each little plus sign [+] is an observation. A given spot can be observed several times on consecutive days so the number of physical spots is about 10 times smaller than the number of plusses. There are no monthly means. What I meant was that I calculate a new yearly average [circles] and median [cyan dots] every time I get new data [once a month]. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Mar 23, 2013 20:40:07 GMT
So what are the dots then ? Are they the average of the monthly mean and medians ? Each little plus sign [+] is an observation. A given spot can be observed several times on consecutive days so the number of physical spots is about 10 times smaller than the number of plusses. There are no monthly means. What I meant was that I calculate a new yearly average [circles] and median [cyan dots] every time I get new data [once a month]. Ok I think I have it. So what you are saying is you keep a running average and the dots represent the average at the time you post it. Is that right ? |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 23, 2013 22:13:10 GMT
yep
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 23, 2013 22:16:28 GMT
And its position is at the 'middle' of the tine interval for which I have data for the year. To be exact: the average time is also calculated. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Mar 24, 2013 1:32:11 GMT
And its position is at the 'middle' of the tine interval for which I have data for the year. To be exact: the average time is also calculated. OK got it ! Now for another question on a different topic. With a low peak for Cycle 23 pretty much established would it follow that Cycle 24 will be a particular long one. Specifically would it follow that Cycle 24 will be longer than Cycle 23 ? (Cycle 23 was 12.5 years long) |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 24, 2013 4:55:15 GMT
And its position is at the 'middle' of the tine interval for which I have data for the year. To be exact: the average time is also calculated. OK got it ! Now for another question on a different topic. With a low peak for Cycle 23 pretty much established would it follow that Cycle 24 will be a particular long one. Specifically would it follow that Cycle 24 will be longer than Cycle 23 ? (Cycle 23 was 12.5 years long) The 'rule' that low cycles are longer is statistical only, and is not guarantied to hold [e.g. it broke down for cycle 4], but it might be a reasonable guess. |
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Mar 26, 2013 17:10:38 GMT
I am still betting the L & P effect has reduced a normal cycle to a low cycle and the length will be shorter than expected (eg pretty normal length of 11-12 years), of course, only a guess.
|
|
andor
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 60
|
Post by andor on Apr 10, 2013 5:33:08 GMT
It's an average of an average? The natural trend for me just by looking at the ups and downs will look totally different from what it is now?
I know we don't want it to go down but... hey guys we can't stop it with the trend? (-:
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Apr 10, 2013 12:03:58 GMT
I am still betting the L & P effect has reduced a normal cycle to a low cycle and the length will be shorter than expected (eg pretty normal length of 11-12 years), of course, only a guess. The mean length (for whatever its worth) of the Cycles on Record is 10.7 years |
|
|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Apr 10, 2013 13:07:52 GMT
It's an average of an average? It's a running average. An average that is constantly recalculated as new data comes in. The natural trend for me just by looking at the ups and downs will look totally different from what it is now? Huh ? ? ? I know we don't want it to go down but... hey guys we can't stop it with the trend? It's not about "what we don't want" it's about what we can prove. The sun has a reputation for throwing curveballs. Gaps in knowledge are revealed by the anomolies that can't be explained. |
|
|
|
Post by france on Apr 14, 2013 15:08:49 GMT
hello, where is our sun ?
did the polarity reverse of its SSN already happened in south hemisphere ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Apr 17, 2013 5:24:13 GMT
hello, where is our sun ? Same place it always is. did the polarity reverse of its SSN already happened in south hemisphere ? No....that happens a couple of years prior to Solar Minimum. SM is some 7 years away. If you are referring to the overall magnetic orientation of the sun. The answer is we are still in a transition period. At the moment the Sun has 2 South Poles www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png |
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Apr 18, 2013 13:32:24 GMT
|
|
AD6AA
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 82
|
Post by AD6AA on Apr 24, 2013 10:43:33 GMT
Am I missing it or is the link to this message board gone from SOLARHAM.COM?
I used Google to get here.
Mike
AD6AA
|
|
