In comments, Jonn-X wondered:
Dead pixels or new sunspecks (pore-ettes) ?
At first I was pretty sure I was looking at nothing, then I saw the official NOAA bulletin
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/forecast.html
and the usual phrase, “The visible disk was spotless,” was omitted – typical practice when there’s something there, but too small to be “officially noticed.”
Anybody else see anything?
I do. I know where the dead pixels are, and have labeled them below in the SOHO MDI image. Note that there are two very small sunspecks, possibly soon to be sunspots, emerging on both sides of the equator.
Click for a full sized image
For those that don’t know. The SOHO spacecraft sensor does have some stuck pixels, and these can sometimes be cured in a “bake off” where they heat up the sensor for a few hours.
Our resident official solar physicist, Dr. Leif Svalgarrd will confirm or refute my suspicions on the categorizations of SC23 and SC24 I’m sure. For comparisons, you can also see the SOHO magnetogram.
I’ve included it also below:
UPDATE: The specks are fading, so far no observation agency has assigned a region or counted them that I know of, see the updated SOHO MDI.
UPDATED SOHO MDI:
Click for larger image
Leif,
Any word from Dr Livingston on magnetic flux value for the most recent spot??
Tucker
I’ve just had a look at the latest SOHO image. I don’t see anything.
I will have to admit to not being able to follow the theory of sunspots! However, following links takes you to some interesting sites…
http://gong.nso.edu/Daily_Images
-leads to observations of the suns magnetic field from the earth but also lets you know if it’s cloudy at the measuring site-I can invent a plausible reason but…?
From that page one fonds the link to “Farside Images”, which made me smile!
http://gong.nso.edu/data/farside
The explanation reads-
“The images show sound wave travel time variations, with locations of shorter travel times appearing darker.”
Which does sound like true “Farside”
http://bp0.blogger.com/_LY-9PTRzghw/R5XukW6AKTI/AAAAAAAABuY/ckvifmldquo/s400/penguins_polar_bear.jpg
Yes, I know, polar bears dont live with penguin but that won’t stop Big Al blaming the cartoon on global warming and does get North and South hemispheres into the picture!
i would love to see Leif’s prediction for SC25 and what drives it….speculating around the edges seems futile to me.
MattN (03:20:07) :
” You can’t be serious with this. Did they really assign numbers to these?!? ”
No, not even the Catania observatory.
So far they’re not even in the same league as the August specks.
I’ve been proposing different names for specks at the lower limit of visibility – specklets, pore-ettes, sunmites, sunfleas etc
would also love to see what David Archibald’s thoughts on the same topic?….the main question being the reason behind the prediction.
Unfortunately this continues the trend of support to the Livingston & Penn idea of diminishing contrast between the sun and its spots.
For those unfamiliar with the idea, Livingston & Penn project that if the trend continues, sunspots will vanish by 2015.
nobwainer (07:08:05) :
i would love to see Leif’s prediction for SC25 and what drives it….speculating around the edges seems futile to me.
While the prediction of SC24 is based on physics [dynamo theory] and observations [Sun’s weak polar fields], the decay of a cycle [which creates the polar fields seeding the next cycle] is random enough to be unpredictable and since observations of said fields are 7-8 years in the future, we really cannot predict SC25. Statistically, small [and large] cycles are grouped together so one can make a good guess that SC25 will be small if SC24 is.
Tucker (04:00:41) :
Any word from Dr Livingston on magnetic flux value for the most recent spot??
No, give Bill time to reduce his data first 🙂
And, no matter what the value is, remember that there is a natural spread of values, so one should not attach too much significance to a single data point.
Looks like the sun’s freckles have faded without being assigned a number. There’s more action in the Arctic as ice forms.
We don’t have an updated SOHO continuum image from the last 8 hours or so, and with the available ground-based images, I’m not able to make out any specklets at all.
In fact, I’m now wondering what minimum criteria an area has to meet in order to be called a plage.
Here’s the definition from Stanford
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/gloss.html
” Plage.
An extended emission feature of an active region that exists from the emergence of the first magnetic flux until the widely scattered remnant magnetic fields merge with the background.
This bright feature is found in the vicinity of virtually all active sunspot groups and occurs on a larger scale and are brighter than facula. Plage is French for “beach,” because each plage looks like light-colored sand against the darker structures around them. ”
If it was never considered an “Active Region,” can it still be a plage?
Clilverd et al predict a quiet sun until ~2030
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24Clilverd.pdf
Most interesting is their prediction for SC24: peak sunspot number 42, “+/- 34,” which means if SC24 came in at the extreme low end of their forecast, the peak SSN would be 8 !
Dikpati et al, and David Hathaway are on record as saying that, because of the currently very slow solar conveyor belt, Solar Cycle 25 will be ‘one of the weakest in centuries.’
John-X (09:25:56) :
If it was never considered an “Active Region,” can it still be a plage?
These ‘definitions’ are always a bit fluid because there are no sharp boundaries between ‘categories’. A more physical approach is that areas with high magnetic flux [greater than 1500 Gauss] appear dark while areas with smaller magnetic flux appear bright, the brightness fading as the flux fades.
The spreckles on the Sun yesterday had nothing at all behind them, not even the 4 month old
ebb of Planetary A index and Solar Wind Velocity. Heck, they never made it to visibility as far as I know of.
Did they?
John-X (09:59:15) :
Clilverd et al predict a quiet sun until ~2030
Their paper is cyclomania and assumes that solar activity is governed by several simultaneous strict cycles. There is no physical basis for such an assumption.
Dikpati et al, and David Hathaway are on record as saying that, because of the currently very slow solar conveyor belt, Solar Cycle 25 will be ‘one of the weakest in centuries.’
Dikpati et al. never claimed that [they did promise several years ago to use their model to predict SC25. A prediction run of the model takes 20 minutes… They never delivered on that promise.
Hathaway’s prediction is predicated on their model being correct, i.e. that their prediction for 24 comes out true. You can’t have a wrong prediction for SC24 and then make a credible claim for SC25 based on that same model.
SC25 will likely be small too if SC24 turns out small, just on the historical record showing that small cycles often come in groups [a counterexample is SC20].
When you look at the gpeg of the magnetogram (and this is the weird part) both micro-sunspot groups appeared at the exact same time. But there is another pair about in the middle of the northern hemisphere that also appeared at the exact same time too!!! How could three sunspot pairs of different cycles appear at the exact same time?
Looking at the latest SOHO image (0839, 30 Sep 08) I can’t even find those specks. Maybe someone else has better eyesight then I do. The latest magnetogram is 7 hours older, and you can still see these specks.
Tucker (04:00:41) :
Any word from Dr Livingston on magnetic flux value for the most recent spot??
The magnetic field strength was 2226 Gauss. Still on track [within the expected spread].
Tucker (04:00:41) :
Any word from Dr Livingston on magnetic flux value for the most recent spot??
The magnetic field strength was 2226 Gauss. Still on track [within the expected spread]. The contrast was 0.864 also on track [with smaller spread even].
Steve M. (10:45:41) :
” Looking at the latest SOHO image (0839, 30 Sep 08) I can’t even find those specks. Maybe someone else has better eyesight then I do. The latest magnetogram is 7 hours older, and you can still see these specks. ”
There’s now a 16:00 UTC SOHO Continuum image
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/
I squinted til my eyes bled and couldn’t see a speck.
The ground-based magnetograms
http://gong.nso.edu/Daily_Images/
show the weak BMR (bi-polar magnetic regions) pretty much unchanged
“Clilverd et al predict a quiet sun until ~2030”
“There is no physical basis for such an assumption.”
Which means when Clilverd is proven correct, well outside any prediction of those impanelled, it doesn’t count.
All right, we had no clue, but they weren’t allowed to buy one!
Gary Gulrud (13:31:25) :
Which means when Clilverd is proven correct, well outside any prediction of those impanelled, it doesn’t count.
‘proven correct’ is much too big. Their prediction is not unique, lots of other predictions all over the place and many overlapping the Clilverd’s, including my own. So if Rmax turns out to be, say, 70 [inside the overlap], both Clilverd and I [and many others] are ‘proven correct’? In selecting who is ‘correct’, reasonable men will give preference to the theories that have a physical bases. Of course, it seems that there are still many unreasonable men out there [and here]…
Amazing new statement from NASA
” Spotless Sun: 2008 is the Blankest Year of the Space Age ”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30sep_blankyear.htm?list878321
I would say there is now NO possibility of this winter NOT being blamed on the sun.
It will become as hard to tune out the “Solar Winter” noise to focus on the facts, as it is now to tune out the “AGW” noise.
I’ve said before that “AGW” will be mocked and ridiculed as never before this winter, and that is now certain.
The desperation and spin of the die hard True Believers will be something to behold.