|
|
Post by nobrainer on Nov 6, 2009 0:10:57 GMT
No tricks involved, not meaning to cast any dispersions on integrity but I know L&P sometimes struggle to get telescope time. How can we be sure they are doing their reading at the peak of the group. Using my own testing method 1029 varied greatly in contrast over 2 days going from 55% to 73% I use a simple method, measure the amount of pixels 0-70 in the green channel, then measure how many pixels between 0-34 then calculate the darkness percentage. I do this at the peak of the spot/group. Below is a chart for all SC24 spots above 23 pixels. The data range is smaller but the trend looks different to L&P  |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Nov 6, 2009 0:38:53 GMT
No tricks involved, not meaning to cast any dispersions on integrity but I know L&P sometimes struggle to get telescope time. How can we be sure they are doing their reading at the peak of the group. Using my own testing method 1029 varied greatly in contrast over 2 days going from 55% to 73% I use a simple method, measure the amount of pixels 0-70 in the green channel, then measure how many pixels between 0-34 then calculate the darkness percentage. I do this at the peak of the spot/group. Below is a chart for all SC24 spots above 23 pixels. The data range is smaller but the trend looks different to L&P Then what was the "I smell a rat" all about? Anyway, you can be sure they do the very best. Bill is the most experienced solar observer in the world, bar none. He measures the field and intensity for EVERY spot in the group. E.g. on the Oct. 26th, there were 16 umbras and he measured every one. B ran from to 1702 to 2390 G, and the intensity from 0.603 to 0.932. Direct comparison with visible images is difficult because he is observing in the deep infrared. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Nov 6, 2009 0:51:12 GMT
so what happened to the expected 3000 Guass reading? Nobody expected 3000 G. We expected 2000 G, and got 2011 G. Sunspots are getting warmer and have less concentrated magnetic flux. This impairs their visibility to the point that if the Sun keeps this up, spots will be invisible by 2018, just as they were during the Maunder [and Spoerer] Minimum. The spots would still be there, the dynamo will still operate and cosmic rays would still be modulated, as observed. Solar activity would therefore not come to a still stand, but the magnetic flux in spots would just be less concentrated. The F10.7 radio flux would be less affected and would not show a 'Grand Minimum' signature.What about the UV Radiation coming out of these types of "Spots" Leif. Will that remain the same or tail off ? |
|
|
|
Post by nobrainer on Nov 6, 2009 1:30:31 GMT
No tricks involved, not meaning to cast any dispersions on integrity but I know L&P sometimes struggle to get telescope time. How can we be sure they are doing their reading at the peak of the group. Using my own testing method 1029 varied greatly in contrast over 2 days going from 55% to 73% I use a simple method, measure the amount of pixels 0-70 in the green channel, then measure how many pixels between 0-34 then calculate the darkness percentage. I do this at the peak of the spot/group. Below is a chart for all SC24 spots above 23 pixels. The data range is smaller but the trend looks different to L&P Then what was the "I smell a rat" all about? Anyway, you can be sure they do the very best. Bill is the most experienced solar observer in the world, bar none. He measures the field and intensity for EVERY spot in the group. E.g. on the Oct. 26th, there were 16 umbras and he measured every one. B ran from to 1702 to 2390 G, and the intensity from 0.603 to 0.932. Direct comparison with visible images is difficult because he is observing in the deep infrared. I thought I explained myself, I smell a rat that perhaps the data is not consistent, through no fault of L&P. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Nov 6, 2009 3:25:13 GMT
Then what was the "I smell a rat" all about? Anyway, you can be sure they do the very best. Bill is the most experienced solar observer in the world, bar none. He measures the field and intensity for EVERY spot in the group. E.g. on the Oct. 26th, there were 16 umbras and he measured every one. B ran from to 1702 to 2390 G, and the intensity from 0.603 to 0.932. Direct comparison with visible images is difficult because he is observing in the deep infrared. I thought I explained myself, I smell a rat that perhaps the data is not consistent, through no fault of L&P. Data is what data is. Your interpretation may not be consistent with the data. L&P measure all they can in a consistent manner as I have explained. Unless you can show that the data is not 'consistent' and with what? you have no basis for such a statement. |
|
|
|
Post by nobrainer on Nov 6, 2009 4:15:50 GMT
I thought I explained myself, I smell a rat that perhaps the data is not consistent, through no fault of L&P. Data is what data is. Your interpretation may not be consistent with the data. L&P measure all they can in a consistent manner as I have explained. Unless you can show that the data is not 'consistent' and with what? you have no basis for such a statement. You have said yourself there are problems with telescope time and weather....no need to go any further than that, this makes the data inconsistent. There must be times when the best data of a sunspot is not available. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Nov 6, 2009 4:24:33 GMT
Data is what data is. Your interpretation may not be consistent with the data. L&P measure all they can in a consistent manner as I have explained. Unless you can show that the data is not 'consistent' and with what? you have no basis for such a statement. You have said yourself there are problems with telescope time and weather....no need to go any further than that, this makes the data inconsistent. There must be times when the best data of a sunspot is not available. I don't think you know what inconsistent even means. An unbiased statistical sample is a fully valid data set. Even SOHO is just a statistical sample of solar activity, it only samples half of the data. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Nov 6, 2009 4:35:15 GMT
You have said yourself there are problems with telescope time and weather....no need to go any further than that, this makes the data inconsistent. Is that the best you can do ? Engage in polemics by parsing words and mistating quotes ? |
|
|
|
Post by nobrainer on Nov 6, 2009 5:28:50 GMT
You have said yourself there are problems with telescope time and weather....no need to go any further than that, this makes the data inconsistent. There must be times when the best data of a sunspot is not available. I don't think you know what inconsistent even means. An unbiased statistical sample is a fully valid data set. Even SOHO is just a statistical sample of solar activity, it only samples half of the data. I think you would argue black is white....if there are gaps in the data it cant be as accurate as data without gaps. If the word consistent doesn't sit well with you, we can use another word. But if there is a choice of gathering data on full time access basis compared to part time access I know which way I would go. I have no doubt they are consistent in their methodology, but their access to the availability of measuring is inconsistent, sometimes good other times not. And Bob...I am having the discussion with Leif. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Nov 6, 2009 5:52:04 GMT
And Bob...I am having the discussion with Leif. You are having a PUBLIC DISCUSSION on a PUBLIC MESSAGE BOARD And I am a Moderator on that board. You sloughed off a concern about your conduct expressed by a Moderator in a way that shows no respect for the moderator or board policy. You're the one that needs to be straighten out !  You are the one for which Kevin and I receive email complaints. NONE of which came from Leif. Your "style" of discussion amounts to little more than childish prattle. If you want to have a private discussion with Leif then you are welcome to exchange emails with him and don't need the services of this board ! You' re done ! |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Nov 6, 2009 7:38:50 GMT
Nobody expected 3000 G. We expected 2000 G, and got 2011 G. Sunspots are getting warmer and have less concentrated magnetic flux. This impairs their visibility to the point that if the Sun keeps this up, spots will be invisible by 2018, just as they were during the Maunder [and Spoerer] Minimum. The spots would still be there, the dynamo will still operate and cosmic rays would still be modulated, as observed. Solar activity would therefore not come to a still stand, but the magnetic flux in spots would just be less concentrated. The F10.7 radio flux would be less affected and would not show a 'Grand Minimum' signature.What about the UV Radiation coming out of these types of "Spots" Leif. Will that remain the same or tail off ? I don't know, but since the UV comes from the faculae not the spots one might speculate that UV would not be affected much. |
|
dc51
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 97
|
Post by dc51 on Nov 6, 2009 9:50:41 GMT
I would have thought that the L&P effect is quite important research at this point in time. should extra resources and funding not be made available?
|
|
|
|
Post by waynelim on Nov 7, 2009 1:40:28 GMT
Leif, you said in an earlier post that L&P observe in the deep infrared. Can you explain at what level this means they are observing? Are they looking at surface characteristics or does looking in the infrared mean they are measuring at some distance below the surface that we can see?
Thanks for the education.
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Nov 7, 2009 1:47:32 GMT
Leif, you said in an earlier post that L&P observe in the deep infrared. Can you explain at what level this means they are observing? Are they looking at surface characteristics or does looking in the infrared mean they are measuring at some distance below the surface that we can see? The wave length is 1565 nm. Infrared begins at 700 nm. The depth is not much different from what we see in the visible, so I don't think there is an issue there and at any rate, since the wave length is the same for all measurements, the results should be consistent over time. The reason Livingston observes at such a large wave length is that the Zeeman splitting used to measure the magnetic field goes up with the square of the wave length, so at three times the wave length is nine times larger than for the lines where we ordinarily measure [e.g. at 525 nm]. This makes for a very precise and secure measurement. |
|
|
|
Post by waynelim on Nov 9, 2009 5:17:31 GMT
The wave length is 1565 nm. Infrared begins at 700 nm. The depth is not much different from what we see in the visible, so I don't think there is an issue there and at any rate, since the wave length is the same for all measurements, the results should be consistent over time. The reason Livingston observes at such a large wave length is that the Zeeman splitting used to measure the magnetic field goes up with the square of the wave length, so at three times the wave length is nine times larger than for the lines where we ordinarily measure [e.g. at 525 nm]. This makes for a very precise and secure measurement. Leif, thanks for that explanation. I had to resort to google quite a bit to read up on and try to make sense of what you wrote. I appreciate your time to answer these questions. |
|
