|
|
Post by npsguy on Nov 12, 2009 18:01:09 GMT
NASA had a small news article titled "Are Sunspots Disappearing?" which discusses the Livingston and Penn paper. science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/03sep_sunspots.htm In the article Matt Penn is quoted
"Personally, I'm betting that sunspots are coming back," says researcher Matt Penn of the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson, Arizona. But, he allows, "there is some evidence that they won't."
Unfortunately the article fails to explain what evidence Penn is talking about. I also didn't see it in the EOS article posted on Dr. Svalgaard's website www.leif.org/EOS/2009EO300001.pdf. Besides the trend of declining sunspot magnetism is there other evidence? |
|
|
|
Post by elbuho on Nov 16, 2009 0:07:48 GMT
Hello everyone.
From Spain we follow this forum with great interest.
What do we know about Livinsgtone readings on 1030?
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Nov 19, 2009 17:05:20 GMT
Leif, A question about Bill Livingston's methodology. When measuring the intensity of sunspot magnetism how does Livingston account for the number of spots on the sun ? Does he take the mean value or does he ignore it and report the value from the most intense spot ? Or report every spot ?
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Nov 19, 2009 17:11:08 GMT
Leif, A question about Bill Livingston's methodology. When measuring the intensity of sunspot magnetism how does Livingston account for the number of spots on the sun ? Does he take the mean value or does he ignore it and report the value from the most intense spot ? Or report every spot ? he finds the darkest area in EVERY spot he can see [when he has telescope time - which is not always] and reports the values for each. On the 26th Oct. 2009, for example, he reported 17 measurements. |
|
|
|
Post by George Kominiak on Nov 20, 2009 12:48:04 GMT
Leif, A question about Bill Livingston's methodology. When measuring the intensity of sunspot magnetism how does Livingston account for the number of spots on the sun ? Does he take the mean value or does he ignore it and report the value from the most intense spot ? Or report every spot ? he finds the darkest area in EVERY spot he can see [when he has telescope time - which is not always] and reports the values for each. On the 26th Oct. 2009, for example, he reported 17 measurements. Leif, Have you heard anything about how the latest 17 measurements line up with the past downward trend? Thanks, G. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Nov 20, 2009 14:21:25 GMT
he finds the darkest area in EVERY spot he can see [when he has telescope time - which is not always] and reports the values for each. On the 26th Oct. 2009, for example, he reported 17 measurements. Leif, Have you heard anything about how the latest 17 measurements line up with the past downward trend? Thanks, G. They line up where there should:  |
|
|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Nov 20, 2009 18:25:23 GMT
Leif, Have you heard anything about how the latest 17 measurements line up with the past downward trend? Thanks, G. They line up where there should: Leif what parameter is the Pink Trace measuring ? I know the scale says "contrast" ? To save you the trouble is there a reference article that explains this parameter ? |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Nov 20, 2009 18:50:03 GMT
They line up where there should: Leif what parameter is the Pink Trace measuring ? I know the scale says "contrast" ? To save you the trouble is there a reference article that explains this parameter ? It should actually say 'intensity' or 'contrast ratio'. It is the intensity of the spot divided by the intensity of the surrounding photosphere. If this number is 1.000, the spot is invisible. Now, these numbers pertain to the infrared where Bill is making the measurements, so in practice it just means that the spot will be harder to see, but perhaps not completely invisible. This will hit small spots the most. The very big ones will still be visible. |
|
|
|
Post by George Kominiak on Nov 20, 2009 23:41:18 GMT
Re: Sunspot Magnetism---Livingston & Penn
« Reply #66 Today at 12:25pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today at 8:21am, lsvalgaard wrote:
Today at 6:48am, George Kominiak wrote:
Leif,
Have you heard anything about how the latest 17 measurements line up with the past downward trend?
Thanks,
G.
They line up where there should:
Thank you!
G.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcarels on Nov 27, 2009 14:53:01 GMT
Why aren't there any other scientist doing these measurements?
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Nov 27, 2009 15:09:35 GMT
Why aren't there any other scientist doing these measurements? Bill Livingston is the best there is. His telescope is the best there is. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Nov 27, 2009 20:52:07 GMT
Why aren't there any other scientist doing these measurements? Bill Livingston is the best there is. His telescope is the best there is. Leif there is no doubting the quality of Livingston's work or the capability of the equipment he uses. But the weakness thus far is the fact that he has been doing said research since 1995, and in earnest since 2003. The questions surrounding Livingston's work revolves the extrapolation he advances. It is my understanding that this was the reason the paper he submitted for peer review was rejected. And Livingston himself says he is comfortable the rejection. That rejection was not an indictment of his work it was saying "there is not enough information presented in this paper to justify your conclusion". "Continue your research and resubmit the paper when you have comprehensive data to support your claim". To answer jcarels inquiry there are sources of data regarding Magnetic Strength Plague. That data is gathered at the Mount Wilson Observatory operated by UCLA. www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/150_data.html#plotsLeif have you looked in to this source ? I realize the equipment at Mt Wilson is a toy compared to what is available at Kitt Peak but is the data so raw as to be useless ? |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Nov 27, 2009 21:24:29 GMT
Bill Livingston is the best there is. His telescope is the best there is. Leif there is no doubting the quality of Livingston's work or the capability of the equipment he uses. But the weakness thus far is the fact that he has been doing said research since 1995, and in earnest since 2003. The questions surrounding Livingston's work revolves the extrapolation he advances. It is my understanding that this was the reason the paper he submitted for peer review was rejected. And Livingston himself says he is comfortable the rejection. That rejection was not an indictment of his work it was saying "there is not enough information presented in this paper to justify your conclusion". "Continue your research and resubmit the paper when you have comprehensive data to support your claim". To answer jcarels inquiry there are sources of data regarding Magnetic Strength Plague. That data is gathered at the Mount Wilson Observatory operated by UCLA. www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/150_data.html#plotsLeif have you looked in to this source ? I realize the equipment at Mt Wilson is a toy compared to what is available at Kitt Peak but is the data so raw as to be useless ? Livingston has now collected more data that bears out his speculation. The MWO data is good. See, however: www.leif.org/research/MWO%20MPSI%20-%20F107.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by George Kominiak on Dec 11, 2009 14:55:12 GMT
Leif there is no doubting the quality of Livingston's work or the capability of the equipment he uses. But the weakness thus far is the fact that he has been doing said research since 1995, and in earnest since 2003. The questions surrounding Livingston's work revolves the extrapolation he advances. It is my understanding that this was the reason the paper he submitted for peer review was rejected. And Livingston himself says he is comfortable the rejection. That rejection was not an indictment of his work it was saying "there is not enough information presented in this paper to justify your conclusion". "Continue your research and resubmit the paper when you have comprehensive data to support your claim". To answer jcarels inquiry there are sources of data regarding Magnetic Strength Plague. That data is gathered at the Mount Wilson Observatory operated by UCLA. www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/150_data.html#plotsLeif have you looked in to this source ? I realize the equipment at Mt Wilson is a toy compared to what is available at Kitt Peak but is the data so raw as to be useless ? Livingston has now collected more data that bears out his speculation. The MWO data is good. See, however: www.leif.org/research/MWO%20MPSI%20-%20F107.pdfLeif, What is the potential impact (if any) of your re-calibration efforts on the results obtained (so far) by livingston and Penn? Thanks, G. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Dec 27, 2009 4:47:40 GMT
Leif
With the recent spate of spots did Bill Livingston get an opportunity to make anymore measurements ? If so what are the results ?
|
|
