Comments on: 10.7 solar radio flux, then and now

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:38:57 +0000

vukcevic (06:33:53) :
Since it appears that you have been giving more than passing attention to my formula
Pseudo-science should be beaten down whenever it rears its ugly head.

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:38:02 +0000

vukcevic (06:33:53) : I did say I am not competing for the for the Astronomy’s award of the year. But you did claim that your formula had predictive power, which it obviously with a fixed period does not. Since it appears that you have been giving more than passing attention to my formula Pseudo-science should be beaten down whenever it rears its ugly head. so not many SS would occur, and they may be hardly visible (LP). The L-P effect [if it occurs] does not mean that the magnetic field is gone, so will have very little effect on the dynamo.

By: vukcevic

vukcevic — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 13:33:53 +0000

Leif Svalgaard (04:31:03) :
Omitting what doesn’t fit will always improve things. But you miss the point, namely that your formula predicts a constant length and the real lengths vary considerably.

Of course, I know they do. I did say I am not competing for the for the Astronomy’s award of the year. I would prefer, if instead of stating obvious you might speculate about the L-P effect.
Since it appears that you have been giving more than passing attention to my formula (I am flattered ! ), you may have noticed that actually it does cross zero, but for such short time that actual SC25 would be insignificant (appearance of a long minimum), the Sun going early into SC26 which of course has same polarity as SC24.
Alternatively, if next set of PF is 50% lower (as the current is) than SC25 might be about 30-35, so not many SS would occur, and they may be hardly visible (LP). In such circumstances, whatever induces Hale cycle changeover may be so week and unable to completely flip the dynamo (complete process usually takes a year +), so hey presto we may not have polarity change.

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 11:31:03 +0000

vukcevic (00:24:06) :
There are 3 odd cycles SC 6, 13, (SC23 is going to be one), longer than 12 years. If you remove SC6&13, then average length is 10.833, against 10.81 in my formula, which is closer than many other estimates.
Omitting what doesn’t fit will always improve things. But you miss the point, namely that your formula predicts a constant length and the real lengths vary considerably.

By: vukcevic

vukcevic — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 07:24:06 +0000

There are 3 odd cycles SC 6, 13, (SC23 is going to be one), longer than 12 years. If you remove SC6&13, then average length is 10.833, against 10.81 in my formula, which is closer than many other estimates. If I got it all correct, you would still dispute it, but even if you did not, lets face it, it would not be a candidate for the Astronomy’s award of the year. Thanks for the encouragement.
I am idling away my time on ‘climate change’ project at the moment, and since there is no mention of TSI, Sun, solar or SC, and making good progress, I may need some help there, if you are so inclined.
As far as reversals are concerned, I know about that anomaly in the formula, but now you brought it up, it did occur to me that the Livingstone-Penn effect might be a precursor to such an event (if you follow logic of it), which for some reason, may happen from time to time. If so than it reversal would be missed at SC24-25 transition around 2025, and remember you first heard it here.
What do you think the exit from the L-P effect may be?

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 02:49:57 +0000

vukcevic (00:29:28) :
Experts do not agree, but you may find some answers here:
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/ links solar current, and solar subcycle

How is your comparison between observed and calculated times of solar maxima coming? You formula predicts a constant cycle length of 10.81 [except every century or so, when your polar fields do not reverse].

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 02:47:23 +0000

Ed (23:54:36) :
100 years from now, people will be looking back and laughing at our ignorance in our understanding of the Sun
100 years ago, it was widely believed that the planets were controlling solar activity.

By: vukcevic

vukcevic — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 07:29:28 +0000

Ed (23:54:36) :
“Why does the sun have a roughly eleven year cycle (suspiciously like our largest planet’s orbital period)? Why does it flip polarity every 22yrs (suspiciously like the conjunction period of our two largest planets)?”

Experts do not agree, but you may find some answers here:
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/ links solar current, and solar subcycle

By: Ed

Ed — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 06:54:36 +0000

I would comment on Lief’s behavior, but it wouldn’t change anything. I would just ignore everything other than actual scientific discussion. As humans, we should be able to rise above it…

Why does the sun have a roughly eleven year cycle (suspiciously like our largest planet’s orbital period)? Why does it flip polarity every 22yrs (suspiciously like the conjunction period of our two largest planets)? I think there is a lot we don’t understand about our planetary system, and the magnetic relationships between the sun and all of our planets…the tidal forces, etc..certainly worth investigating and working on, whether professionally or as an amateur.

100 years from now, people will be looking back and laughing at our ignorance in our understanding of the Sun, Lief, the solar system…the blue planet for that matter.

Humbling I would think…the little that we know…keep the ideas rolling!

By: Jim Hughes

Jim Hughes — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 05:04:27 +0000

Hopefully there’s no doubt about the current group on the sun which has been rapidly emerging during the past several hours. Maybe Region 1024 can even produce a few C-Class flares for the first time in a while.

By: rbateman

rbateman — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:32:04 +0000

Part A is getting a preliminary area count that isn’t a nearest 10 kludge.
Part B is when someone like Lief convinces organizations to adopt a standardized way to come up with SSN via area measurement.

By: pkatt

pkatt — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:49:21 +0000

grrrrr. Go figure. Two organizations doing the same work (sunspot count) cant even mutually decide what qualifys as a sunspot? Break out the telescope, if you can see it, its a spot.. if you cant, then its not:P No cheating with magnetograms.

By: rbateman

rbateman — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:44:19 +0000

Sunspot Automatic
Measurement (SAM) (Gy}ori, 1998), is the name of the program Debrecen uses.
I’m sure we couldn’t get it, and it probably runs on a specific brand of Unix or Linux, as most specialized scientific processing does.
I’ll check IRAF for any packages, but don’t hold your breath.

By: rbateman

rbateman — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:41:53 +0000

It is a lot of work.
Read this paper:
http://fenyi.sci.klte.hu/publ/Gyori_et_al_ASR2004.pdf
The big deal is that observations (images) have piled up for years, so as far as staying current, it’s what we come up with.

By: Geoff Sharp

Geoff Sharp — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:00:50 +0000

rbateman (23:07:18) :

Seems like a lot of hard work. If we had a stack of SOHO images, all we need is a program that stores the date, then counts how many pixels have a red value higher than 240 (isolates space background) and also have a green value of >70. This gives us the sunspot area by date which can then be graphed. Further work could be done to analyze the darkness of the spot by factoring in the green and blue values.