|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Oct 2, 2009 19:09:48 GMT
Leif, I already have.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 2, 2009 23:20:25 GMT
From Livingston [30 seconds ago]: "The obs are in the bag. Bill" For 1027 [1026 he didn't get], the mean of 12 spots over 4 days was: 1917 Gauss for field strength 0.850 for contrast Needless to say [!] the results fall just where they should be:  Thanks for reporting this Leif, quite exciting material! Thanks also to Livingston for providing his measurements. So how far are we away from confirming L&P (2005)? ii I am not schooled in gauss etc. What is the meaning of the graph? Thank you in advance. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Oct 3, 2009 0:25:01 GMT
Thanks for reporting this Leif, quite exciting material! Thanks also to Livingston for providing his measurements. So how far are we away from confirming L&P (2005)? ii I am not schooled in gauss etc. What is the meaning of the graph? Thank you in advance. It shows how the magnetic field of sunspots [measured in Gauss has become weaker the past several years] |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 3, 2009 0:43:40 GMT
ii I am not schooled in gauss etc. What is the meaning of the graph? Thank you in advance. It shows how the magnetic field of sunspots [measured in Gauss has become weaker the past several years] Am I correct in thinking that as the Gauss goes down, and contrast seems to go up, that there is a correlation that is important? Again, thank you in advance. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Oct 3, 2009 0:51:36 GMT
It shows how the magnetic field of sunspots [measured in Gauss has become weaker the past several years] Am I correct in thinking that as the Gauss goes down, and contrast seems to go up, that there is a correlation that is important? Again, thank you in advance. Yes, when Gauss goes down, the sunspot becomes warmer and thus less dark and the contrast [defined as light intensity of spot divided by that of surroundings] goes up and the spot becomes harder to see. When contrast = 1 the spot is invisible. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 3, 2009 1:03:21 GMT
Am I correct in thinking that as the Gauss goes down, and contrast seems to go up, that there is a correlation that is important? Again, thank you in advance. Yes, when Gauss goes down, the sunspot becomes warmer and thus less dark and the contrast [defined as light intensity of spot divided by that of surroundings] goes up and the spot becomes harder to see. When contrast = 1 the spot is invisible. Is my understanding correct in this: 1. That a sunspot is a cooler area of the sun 2. That a sunspot is the result of a magnetic storm of some type on the sun? 3. That as the spots gauss goes down and contrast up, the magnetic field is not as strong, and the resulting solar flares would also be weaker? Or are solar flares not caused by sunspots? Thanks again. I am going to have to learn a whole lot more without bothering you, but from what I read you are such a wonderful wealth of information and have patience for people such as I. |
|
|
|
Post by nobrainer on Oct 3, 2009 1:19:57 GMT
Another way at looking at the data (thanks Leif) Its a bit rough and ready as the timeline is not to proper scale, but the trend is clear. But, is this trend to be expected with a background solar reducing strength since SC21 and also most of the data is taken from the downslope of SC23. The last 2 readings are above 2000 guass which is an upswing. Will the trend flatten out even with a possible grand minimum in the making?  |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Oct 3, 2009 3:36:52 GMT
Yes, when Gauss goes down, the sunspot becomes warmer and thus less dark and the contrast [defined as light intensity of spot divided by that of surroundings] goes up and the spot becomes harder to see. When contrast = 1 the spot is invisible. Is my understanding correct in this: 1. That a sunspot is a cooler area of the sun 2. That a sunspot is the result of a magnetic storm of some type on the sun? 3. That as the spots gauss goes down and contrast up, the magnetic field is not as strong, and the resulting solar flares would also be weaker? Or are solar flares not caused by sunspots? Thanks again. I am going to have to learn a whole lot more without bothering you, but from what I read you are such a wonderful wealth of information and have patience for people such as I. Everything you surmised is about right. Perhaps with exception of the last. Flares are disturbances in the magnetic fields above sunspots. The disturbance travels downwards and heats the area around the spot. So, there flare may not be directly linked to the strength of the spot, but rather to how much the magnetic fields above the spot is twisted around. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Oct 3, 2009 3:41:20 GMT
Another way at looking at the data (thanks Leif) Its a bit rough and ready as the timeline is not to proper scale, but the trend is clear. But, is this trend to be expected with a background solar reducing strength since SC21 and also most of the data is taken from the downslope of SC23. The last 2 readings are above 2000 guass which is an upswing. Will the trend flatten out even with a possible grand minimum in the making? It is possible that a grand minimum is just an instance of L&P, that is: the spots are there, but we can't see them. This would explain why we still have cosmic ray modulation even during Grand Minima. We'll know in about five years time. The variation from day to day is large enough that it does not make sense to talk about an upswing. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Oct 3, 2009 3:42:45 GMT
Leif do you know if the trailing region of 1026 will be classified as a separate group if it holds up long enough to make it across the back side of the sun ?
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Oct 3, 2009 4:01:44 GMT
Leif do you know if the trailing region of 1026 will be classified as a separate group if it holds up long enough to make it across the back side of the sun ? difficult question, but if it has a bipolar structure, I would say it is another region. |
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Oct 24, 2009 6:42:07 GMT
Please may I put in a request for data from Dr. Livingston, on 1029, should it become available. TIA
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Oct 24, 2009 7:32:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Oct 24, 2009 16:40:15 GMT
Leif Svalgaard writes "Check www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png it is updated as soon as L&P have new data. " Fair enough. However, one needs to try and get the actual numbers by reading the graph. It seems to me to be much better for you to post the actual numbers when they become available. It would be nice to get all the raw data of the readings which Dr Livingston gets. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Oct 24, 2009 18:30:55 GMT
Leif Svalgaard writes "Check www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png it is updated as soon as L&P have new data. " Fair enough. However, one needs to try and get the actual numbers by reading the graph. It seems to me to be much better for you to post the actual numbers when they become available. It would be nice to get all the raw data of the readings which Dr Livingston gets. The raw data is also available, but 'belongs' to Livingston as we should keep that in mind: www.leif.org/research/Livingston.txtI'll remove the file shortly, so you'll have to pay attention when I post updates to it. |
|
