There’s been a little discussion about the plage area that came around the solar rim in the last two days, and now it appears that it has formed a spot. (h/t to Leif Svalgaard)
Click for full sized image
Note that other similar sized black “specks” on the image are stuck pixels in the SOHO imager.
The question now is: how long will the sunspeck last? Longevity has not been a virtue for similarly sized sunspecks this year.
UPDATE: As of 1600 UTC 10-05-2008 the speck is gone on the latest SOHO MDI – Anthony
Jan Janssens has an interesting discussion on it (h/t to John-x)
4 October 08 – There is a new sunspotgroup visible on the southern solar hemisphere (as already reported yesterday by Pete Lawrence on the Spaceweather-website).
Belgian solar observers saw earlier this morning at least one sunspot clearly in this region.
Interestingly, Locarno (07:15 UT ; Q=2) and SIDC/Ukkel (07:45 UT ; Q=2?) did not report anything just a few hours earlier… Kanzelhöhe (09:03UT) did notice a bipolar group.
My own observations (C8, 68x) do not show “clearly” a B-group: a clear Axx for sure, but if there’s still something there, it rather looks like a small photospheric region imbedded in somewhat brighter faculae fields… A greyish pore at most (at least around 8:30UT, with Q=3 and some cirrus). The region is also very nice in H-alpha: 3 closely packed and relatively bright small areas, with some dark fibrils in the neighbourhood.
GONG-images also show the group. NSO-magnetograms clearly reflect an overnight enhancement of the magnetic fields in this region. The polarity is that of a SC23-group… at a latitude of at least -20°… This can possibly still be a high latitude SC23-group. Late June 1997, NOAA 8056 -with SC22-polarity- appeared with a latitude of +17°. See SOHO for magnetogram, and Kanzelhöhe for a drawing. The nearby group is NOAA 8055, a SC23-group (= new cycle) at +15°! And this happened more than a year after cycle minimum and the start of SC23. I have no magnetograms of earlier SC-transits to evaluate how exceptional or common all this is. At least this is a new element for discussion!
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Engwelcome.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m writing from Italy and I apologise for my English.
I’d like to make a question about SIDC’s method of counting sunspot in their database. This one
http://sidc.oma.be/products/ri_hemispheric/
As we know Noaa counts sunspots with Wolf Number method, that means we can’t have a number below 11. Is this right?
Now, in Sidc database, we found, for example, on 29th september, the number 8.
HoW did Sidc calculate this number which is not a Wolf number?
Thanks
Damian74 (09:05:22) :
I’d like to make a question about SIDC’s method of counting sunspot in their database.
The basic reason for reported counts below 11 is that since the count depends on how big the telescope is, how clear the air is, how good the observer is, etc, the ‘raw’ count, e.g. 11, is multiplied by a factor, k, that is determined individually for each observer. An observer with a large telescope may have k = 0.5 to compensate for that. This explains why you see numbers less than 11.
There is another subtlety: suppose you have two observatories [with equal k-value] only, on opposite sides of the Earth. On a given day, A observes a small spot, but because the spot may have disappeared when B makes his observation 12 hours later and does not see the spot. How should SIDC count? Should the count be 0, 5.5, or 11? At present, I think SIDC would count 5.5. This was not always the case. Up to 1980 [when SIDC took over] the method was different: The Zurich observers were the primary observers, so if they made an observation on a given day [even if they saw no spots] that observation was the ONLY one used in the calculation of the sunspot number. If no observation was made [bad weather, observer sick, etc] the observation from a secondary observer was used. If he also did not make any observation that day, a tertiary observer was used, etc., to fill in the missing data.
So, when you have only a few, short-lived spots, you can get quite different results.
Christopher (08:32:21) :
So what’s the verdict on this spot? Is it sc23 or sc24?> Also does count for the day or not?
The region has rotated some more, which may indicate that also rotated before we first saw it, which would make the polarity clearly SC23. It’s high latitude argues for SC24, so what to do? In my own statistics of this I enter a count of 0.5 for SC23 and 0.5 for SC24. BTW, Bill Livingston did not catch the spot, so no measurements of its magnetic field or contrast.
Dee Norris (07:31:12) :
The increase in EM emissions will be correlated to increases in brain cancer similar to CO2 and temperature and this revelation along with ACS will severely punish those nasty users of EM devices.
I’ve done another analysis here http://dreamofthought.blogspot.com/
Look at the two wavelets, and it looks frightening.
Leif Svalgaard (09:44:08) :
Damian74 (09:05:22) :
It seems that those researchers basing their conclusions on historic sunspot numbers might be a bit misguided if they ignore the historical observational changes that you have indicated?
Leif Svalgaard said,
Tom hall (12:58:51) :
Would we have been able to see “Specks” of this size a hundred years ago or do we only see them now due to the technology of our observation equipment.
Yes we would. One of the best solar telescopes in existence today was built in 1912. Now, if we go back two hundred years or three hundred, the answer is no, although from 1850 on we would have seen them. A different question is if we would have counted the speck, and before 1893, the answer is no.
My question is at what DATE after 1893 were these specks counted and logged.
edcon (10:26:27) :
Leif Svalgaard (09:44:08) :
It seems that those researchers basing their conclusions on historic sunspot numbers might be a bit misguided if they ignore the historical observational changes that you have indicated?
Yes, you are quite right. A large part of my current work [when you guys leave me alone 🙂 ] is concerned with determining how much the official sunspot series are off. The object is to get a series that is free from such inhomogeneities. Predictably, that is being met with resistance from some quarters, but we are making slow progress towards breaking that down. I’m giving a presentation at the upcoming AGU meeting in December on this:
SH13A-1109
Origins of the Wolf Sunspot Number Series: Geomagnetic Underpinning
Cliver, E W, Space Vehicles Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory &
* Svalgaard, L
The Wolf or International sunspot number (SSN) series is based on the work of Swiss astronomer Rudolf Wolf (1816-1893). Following the discovery of the sunspot cycle by Schwabe in 1843, Wolf culled sunspot counts from journals and observatory reports and combined them with his own observations to produce a SSN series that extended from 1700-1893. Thereafter the SSN record has been maintained by the Zurich Observatory and, since 1981, by the Royal Observatory of Belgium. The 1700-1893 SSN record constructed by Wolf has not been modified since his death. Here we show that Wolf’s SSNs were not based solely on reports of sunspots but were calibrated by reference to geomagnetic range observations which closely track the sunspot number. Nor were these corrections small; for example Wolf multiplied the long series (1749-1796) of sunspot counts obtained by Staudacher by factors of 2.0 and 1.25, in turn, to obtain the numbers in use today. It is not surprising then that a competing SSN series obtained by Hoyt and Schatten based on group sunspot numbers is different, generally lower than that of Wolf. Comparison of the International number with current magnetic range observations indicates that, as Wolf found, the magnetic range (specifically, the average annual Y-component of mid-latitude stations) can be used as an independent check on the validity and stability of the SSN series. Moreover, the geomagnetic range series, which in itself is a long-term proxy of solar FUV emission, can be used to resolve discrepancies between the Wolf and Group SSN series during the 19th century. Wolf’s successors changed the counting method for small spots introducing a further 20% upward discontinuity after Wolf’s death, and later again by the same amount in ~1946.
REPLY: Leif I went to your research page http://www.leif.org/research/
to see if you had a PDF of this. I looked at several papers, and immediately rejected them, didn’t bother to read them at all. Why?
The PDF’s (that I looked at such as http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS.pdf ) have the pages rotated, making reading them online in a PDF reader a maddening excercise. Why in the world would you publish this way? You are hamstringing yourself. Readability is king. – Anthony
This morning I had to melt my chocolate so that I could drink it hot! It was snowing just up the road! As the swirling clouds clear from the mountains that nearly surround me, I am able to see more and more snow, from a dusting to solid white mountain faces. Our out-of-town hunters are up there! If any of them thought we would have relatively balmy weather in the upper hunting areas (which was what NOAA said), they must be packing up and leaving about now. That is if they can get out of the snow drift. The two-pan horse camp has to be a field of white from what I can see down here in the valley. That means the weather service was WAY off about elevation and chance of snow. It is on average warmer than last year, but snow has hit earlier.
Rob (10:57:22) :
My question is at what DATE after 1893 were these specks counted and logged.
6 December 1893 when Rudolf Wolf died and could no longer prevent his assistant [and successor] Alfred Wolfer from counting the specks.
Rickj (10:25:47) :
Look at the two wavelets, and it looks frightening.
The text seems to claim that they are BOTH the last 11400 years and are based on the same data. Perhaps correcting the text would be useful.
Apart from that the 11-year cycle is clear in the first plot, but very weak in the second plot, somehow casting doubt on it. Perhaps some consistent labeling and/or explanation of what the axes mean would be useful, too.
REPLY:The PDF’s (that I looked at such as http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS.pdf ) have the pages rotated, making reading them online in a PDF reader a maddening excercise. Why in the world would you publish this way? You are hamstringing yourself. Readability is king.
Most are meant as presentations and almost all presentation devices [projecting onto a screen for a large audience] use landscape mode. It is trivial to instruct your PDF reader to rotate the pages. If you use your browser to view the PDF left-click on on the PDF toolbar, select more tools, scroll down to and select rotate clockwise. If you are using the Adobe reader select tools from the menu bar, then as above.
REPLY: Yep, the rotate feature in Adobe reader is well hidden, I didn’t know it existed. Learned something new today, thanks. – Anthony
REPLY: Yep, the rotate feature in Adobe reader is well hidden, I didn’t know it existed. Learned something new today, thanks. – Anthony
You could almost deduce from the fact that my presentations were rotated that the feature had to be there, otherwise I would have had two versions of everything [portrait and landscape]. 🙂
Dr. Svalgaard, I would very much appreciate you insights into any possible interplay upon climate between what’s happening with the sun and the shifting polarity and magnetism here on Earth. http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080905/116577165.html
The truly well-hidden option is: CTRLSHIFT- to rotate
That (a lifetime of taxes to cover additional social experimentation) is exactly what I’m afraid of.
Ultimately these cap-and-trade politicians pose a serious threat to individual wealth. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I like what little money I have to remain in my own pocket. But… I’ll have another cup of cocoa and see if things don’t look a little brighter when I get up from my nap.
OLD FARTS UNITE!!!
Craig Moore (12:00:52) :
I would very much appreciate you insights into any possible interplay upon climate between what’s happening with the sun and the shifting polarity and magnetism here on Earth.
The Earth magnetic field has changed polarity thousands of times in the past and life is still around, so no big worry there. There are, indeed, good evidence of a decrease in the magnetic field and of movements of the magnetic poles. Just moving the poles does not decrease the field, but the field is decreasing because the dynamo that creates it is weakening. Now, the Earth is not a simple dipole with two magnetic poles. When the Earth’s magnetic field was first mapped two-three hundred years ago it was actually thought that there were four poles. This is because there are strong irregularities in the field and there are significant magnetism arising from these ‘other’ poles, so when the dipole reverses, the magnetic field will not go to zero, but will just become weaker and more disorganized. The radiation belts will become less stable. Birds will have to rely more on the Sun than on their internal compass, but all this has happened before. We’ll learn about how the Earth’s magnetosphere works from this [if we haven’t figured it out already – it may take perhaps 500 years for this to play out].
Leif Svalgaard (12:46:05) :
Craig Moore (12:00:52) :
I would very much appreciate you insights into any possible interplay upon climate
And I forgot about the climate ! Perhaps because I don’t think there will be climatic effects from this. Now, if you believe that the cosmic rays are controlling our climate, then a weaker magnetic field will increase the cosmic ray flux and the low clouds and perhaps decrease the temperature, but that is just speculation [ducking…].
Bill P (12:43:10) :
OLD FARTS UNITE!!!
Hey, watch that methane… 🙂
REPLY: Is that first year methane or multi-year methane? – Anthony
Tony:
Watch it lads, lest ye be aspersed as flatus earthers.
Leif Svalgaard
I want to thank you for your tremendous insight and work that is very helpful to an old old engineer interested in learning something new. I don’t know how you find the time to respond to all comments and especially the testy ones.
I thought I saw a good one but it was a speck on the computer screen.
BillP:
“Not to put too fine a point on it, but I like what little money I have to remain in my own pocket.”
And wouldn’t we all?…we’re considering selling our home and moving into a motor home that we would park in an adjacent state to where we now live, thus avoiding property taxes AND income taxes, along with a lower heating bill than we have now :*)
lebert:
“Watch it lads, lest ye be aspersed as flatus earthers”
Mightent that be “flatulantus Earthers”?
Jimb
Two three or not two three, that is the question;
Leif Svalgaard (08:53:51) :”Now, why wouldn’t that not also apply to the attempts to show that there is a connection?”
Who’s attempt?