|
|
Post by George Kominiak on Mar 28, 2010 19:40:06 GMT
Hey Guys, Has anyone heard whether Bill Livingston has had any luck getting recent time on the telescope?? G. George, Leif posts in this thread communications that he receives from Bill on this matter as soon he gets them but makes it a point not to bug Bill. Thanks Bob, 'Just checkin!! G. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 6, 2010 23:25:08 GMT
George, Leif posts in this thread communications that he receives from Bill on this matter as soon he gets them but makes it a point not to bug Bill. 'Just checkin!! G. Update on L&P:  He' got a bit more spread because of the large spots the last two weeks, but still looking good. |
|
AD6AA
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 82
|
Post by AD6AA on Apr 7, 2010 0:47:32 GMT
Couple questions. First, any significance that the original expectation that The Sunspots disappear by 2015 have been pushed back a few years? Second,Any significance that the two plotted curves are arcing in the same direction, I would expect the curves to be counter to each other. I find this fascinating, of course my wife thinks I'm weird sometimes. Mike AD6AA [/quote] Update on L&P: He' got a bot more spread because of the large spots the last two weeks, but still looking good. [/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 7, 2010 2:03:03 GMT
Couple questions. First, any significance that the original expectation that The Sunspots disappear by 2015 have been pushed back a few years? Second,Any significance that the two plotted curves are arcing in the same direction, I would expect the curves to be counter to each other. I find this fascinating, of course my wife thinks I'm weird sometimes. Mike AD6AA The 2015 was a shaky extrapolation. Now we have another shaky extrapolation, but based on a bit more data. The 'arcing' is not significant. Straight lines fit just as well. |
|
|
|
Post by ncfcadam on Apr 7, 2010 7:59:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by George Kominiak on Apr 9, 2010 23:21:13 GMT
Update on L&P: He' got a bot more spread because of the large spots the last two weeks, but still looking good. Leif, Sorry I'm so slow. Thanks for the update! G. |
|
|
|
Post by semimadscientist on Apr 10, 2010 17:41:34 GMT
I have to admit to being a little confused about the latest update; it seems identical to one posted on 30th September. Also, it was clear from the september graph that the " 2015 " target was looking more like 2018, yet this shifting forward of the date we go below 1500 Gauss is being treated as something revealed by the latest graph. Am I missing something here, and if so, what? Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 10, 2010 18:45:44 GMT
I have to admit to being a little confused about the latest update; it seems identical to one posted on 30th September. Also, it was clear from the september graph that the " 2015 " target was looking more like 2018, yet this shifting forward of the date we go below 1500 Gauss is being treated as something revealed by the latest graph. Am I missing something here, and if so, what? Thanks! The update has data point to the right of the 2010 year mark. I don't think the 30 September could have had that. You may be confused by the real time update capability of the graph. If I posted a graph on 30th September 2009 and you go back to look at that, you'll see that it has been updated until today as well. |
|
|
|
Post by semimadscientist on Apr 10, 2010 19:08:08 GMT
The update has data point to the right of the 2010 year mark. I don't think the 30 September could have had that. You may be confused by the real time update capability of the graph. If I posted a graph on 30th September 2009 and you go back to look at that, you'll see that it has been updated until today as well. Dr Svalgaard In that case, yes, the real time update capability was what was confusing me. I did wonder how it could have been so far ahead back in September but wrote it off as the alignment being slightly off. I'm feeling quite silly now.  |
|
|
|
Post by annav on Apr 13, 2010 5:29:33 GMT
I went to SOHO and checked on the movie player the MDI continuum for March 12 years ago.
Two differences:
1) spots appear at very high latitude, we have not seen in this cycle, and from what I have gathered the latitude lowers as time goes on,
2)even tiny tims have umbras
If I go to an 11 year lag, the corresponding month in 2009 is blank
What struck me in the magnetograms is the number high latitude disturbances in 1998 , which have not appeared in this cycle in 2009 , just 3 in this month and small ones.
I can see the lack of umbras and small spots as part of the LP effect.
What about the magnetic show though? If the spots are there and just not visible there should be disturbances in the magnetic plots of SOHO, no?
|
|
grian
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 50
|
Post by grian on Apr 13, 2010 10:19:22 GMT
I went to SOHO and checked on the movie player the MDI continuum for March 12 years ago. Two differences: 1) spots appear at very high latitude, we have not seen in this cycle, and from what I have gathered the latitude lowers as time goes on, 2)even tiny tims have umbras If I go to an 11 year lag, the corresponding month in 2009 is blank What struck me in the magnetograms is the number high latitude disturbances in 1998 , which have not appeared in this cycle in 2009 , just 3 in this month and small ones. I can see the lack of umbras and small spots as part of the LP effect. What about the magnetic show though? If the spots are there and just not visible there should be disturbances in the magnetic plots of SOHO, no? So these sunspots I've been observing (I mean really observing through a telescope, not looking at SOHO images) have no umbras? Could have fooled me. |
|
jinki
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 123
|
Post by jinki on Apr 13, 2010 10:45:46 GMT
I went to SOHO and checked on the movie player the MDI continuum for March 12 years ago. Two differences: 1) spots appear at very high latitude, we have not seen in this cycle, and from what I have gathered the latitude lowers as time goes on, 2)even tiny tims have umbras If I go to an 11 year lag, the corresponding month in 2009 is blank What struck me in the magnetograms is the number high latitude disturbances in 1998 , which have not appeared in this cycle in 2009 , just 3 in this month and small ones. I can see the lack of umbras and small spots as part of the LP effect. What about the magnetic show though? If the spots are there and just not visible there should be disturbances in the magnetic plots of SOHO, no? So these sunspots I've been observing (I mean really observing through a telescope, not looking at SOHO images) have no umbras? Could have fooled me. Perhaps "Mr. Telescope" might read annav's comments more closely. The reference was to the high latitude tiny tims. Your conduct on this board leaves much room for improvement. |
|
grian
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 50
|
Post by grian on Apr 13, 2010 12:19:25 GMT
So these sunspots I've been observing (I mean really observing through a telescope, not looking at SOHO images) have no umbras? Could have fooled me. Perhaps "Mr. Telescope" might read annav's comments more closely. The reference was to the high latitude tiny tims. Your conduct on this board leaves much room for improvement. Just pointing out in my own inimitable manner that nearly all sunspots have umbras - some are only umbras (A and B class). To say that there has been a lack of umbras (whatever the latitude) is, therefore, incorrect - certainly from a white light observer's point of view. Maybe you should have read my post more closely. |
|
|
|
Post by annav on Apr 13, 2010 17:21:55 GMT
Perhaps "Mr. Telescope" might read annav's comments more closely. The reference was to the high latitude tiny tims. Your conduct on this board leaves much room for improvement. Just pointing out in my own inimitable manner that nearly all sunspots have umbras - some are only umbras (A and B class). To say that there has been a lack of umbras (whatever the latitude) is, therefore, incorrect - certainly from a white light observer's point of view. Maybe you should have read my post more closely. OK, OK as a simple physicist with a bit of latin knowledge, I used the wrong term. I should have used penumbra for what I mean. The lighter shadow around the core of the sunspot. I just compared data available to me through the SOHO archives, and the observation I made holds: tiny tims as the current one ( btw can you see it at all? GONG does not see it) look like pores without shadows, 12 years ago they are tiny, but have shadows. If you can even see this one (1062) your telescope must be better than the ones on GONG. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 13, 2010 18:05:03 GMT
Just pointing out in my own inimitable manner that nearly all sunspots have umbras - some are only umbras (A and B class). To say that there has been a lack of umbras (whatever the latitude) is, therefore, incorrect - certainly from a white light observer's point of view. Maybe you should have read my post more closely. OK, OK as a simple physicist with a bit of latin knowledge, I used the wrong term. I should have used penumbra for what I mean. The lighter shadow around the core of the sunspot. I just compared data available to me through the SOHO archives, and the observation I made holds: tiny tims as the current one ( btw can you see it at all? GONG does not see it) look like pores without shadows, 12 years ago they are tiny, but have shadows. If you can even see this one (1062) your telescope must be better than the ones on GONG. One of Bill Livingston's 'complaints' is that the 'pores' [defined as spots without penumbra] seem to have be much more in evidence this minimum rather than normal spots. this does not mean that there are no normal spots. And in any event it is much too early to speculate [and fight] over this. Let's see how this develops, perhaps holding out the hope that old Sol will do something unusual. |
|
