Michael Ronayne writes:
To the right of the burned out pixel, a second Sunspot group, with two spots, is forming which can be seen in this image:
The burned out pixel between the two groups is a fairly common issue with SOHO, and they routinely “bake” the sensor to get rid of them. Sometimes people mistakenly interpret them as sunspots in this new age of counting sunspecks.
The way to determine if it is a burned out pixel or not is to look for other off-colr pixels immediately arround it. If the pixel stands by itself, it is a burned out pixel.
So far these have not been assigned a number. They are just barely what one would call sunspots and my bet is that much as we’ve seen before from SC24 specks, they will be short lived, probably 48 hours or less.
I hope the maximum for this cycle is very low — because it would be interesting to me to see what does or does not happen as a result.
Possibly OT, here,
but nevertheless something puzzling me, re: PDO
here is a picture with Sunspots & smoothed Sunspots (SIDC),
adjusted solar flux (Thanks again, Leif), GCR from Oulu (* 0.04):
–
On SC18,19,20,21 PDO was strong at SCmax and weak at SCmin.
On SC22, SC23 PDO was weak at SCmax and strong at SCmin.
On transition from SC23 to SC24, again PDO gets weak at SCmin, like it did
at SCmin of SC18 to SC21.
I have no explanation, at least nothing I could consider as – seriously.
Any guesses?
http://i44.tinypic.com/2ro5lrl.jpg
… I did try it previously with the ipmlemented link to tinyurl, did crash Firefox, so
I do try it seperately:
Here’s the text:
Possibly OT, here,
but nevertheless something puzzling me.
here is a picture with Sunspots, smoothed Sunspots (SIDC),
adjusted solar flux (Thanks again, Leif), GCR from Oulu (* 0.04):
–
On SC18,19,20,21 PDO was strong at SCmax and weak at SCmin.
On SC22, SC23 PDO was weak at SCmax and strong at SCmin.
On transition from SC23 to SC24, again PDO gets weak at SCmin, like it did
at SCmin of SC18 to SC21.
I have no explanation, at least nothing I could consider as – seriously.
Any guesses?
It will be interesting to see what happens to the climate indeed with solar activity low, especially now that the latest SST map from NOAA shows evidence that the PDO may be somewhat dependent on ENSO because the cool horse-shoe has kicked the bucket as La-Nina finished disappearing.
KlausB (12:13:19) :
I have no explanation, at least nothing I could consider as – seriously. Any guesses?
Yes, they have nothing to do with each other. That is the simplest explanation.
Looking at the latest image a few moments ago, these look like the best so far.
Then we place our virgins together with the high priests of AGW at the top of the pyramid and at each level down the lesser proponents of AGW such as the politicians, the NGOs, the meeja etc.
For all must attend.
At the propitious moment when the sun’s rays strike the correct point at Stonehenge the Virgins must be sacrificed
I was with you up until this point, but I have a better idea.
KlausB (11:50:01) :
On SC18,19,20,21 PDO was strong at SCmax and weak at SCmin.
On SC22, SC23 PDO was weak at SCmax and strong at SCmin.
On transition from SC23 to SC24, again PDO gets weak at SCmin, like it did
at SCmin of SC18 to SC21.
I have no explanation, at least nothing I could consider as – seriously.
Any guesses?
http://i44.tinypic.com/2ro5lrl.jpg
Human vision is very good at picking out correlations. If you made a plot without the sunspot curves and then tried to pick out SC transistions, I think you would notice all the places where the PDO makes a significant change that your eye isn’t drawn to when the SSN curves are up.
A non-astronomical analogy might be “razzle-dazzle” camouflage, see http://www.crookedbrains.net/2007/09/razzle-dazzle-dazzle-camouflage-british.html and http://www.core77.com/blog/object_culture/razzle_dazzle_camouflage_3677.asp – the goal was to make it difficult for submariners to determine the course of the ship.
Nice graph, though.
Mighty nice trio of dark spots today. Numbers aren’t in yet, but it’s looking good. Now it will be interesting to see where this lies on L&P projection. Are we on track or is it reversing?
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (06:46:53) :
Yes, the size of spots resolved are heavily dependent on the resolving power of the scope and the focal length plus seeing.
Since you are stacking images, you are decreasing the noise of individual pixels and the readout electronics as well as compensating for the seeing conditions, thus increasing the resolution of the final image.
Using a filter, you decrease the brightness (glare) that would visually hamper the observation. Splitting your 2x Barlow image into RGB components, I notice that the Red band is much sharper than Blue or Green.
It would be interesting to see what a single integration would reveal.
Using a simple 70mm refractor, I cannot see the smaller spots today.
I am quite sure that if you took SOHO and did the same imaging steps, you could get even tinier spots.
Strangely enough the PDO/SSN corralation is only seen with the last two cycles during its warm phase and no obvious corralation during the cool phase before it, it almost looks like before the bulk of the cool phase the possible corralation is flipped!? O.O
Could it be that the dynamics of the PDO when you factor in everything including solar variables is more complicated then one would’ve thought?
at Drudge :
NASA: Sun cycle ‘lowest since 1928’…
http://www.drudgereport.com/
From Spaceweather: The sunspot’s two dark cores are each about the size of Earth, and they are crackling with A-class solar flares. During years of Solar Max (e.g., 2000-2002) we would consider such activity minor, but now, during the deep solar minimum of 2008-2009, it merits attention. The magnetic polarity and high latitude of the sunspot identify it as a member of new Solar Cycle 24, expected to peak in 2013. This makes sunspot 1019 a sign of things to come. Readers with solar telescopes should take a look.
This time the spots are bigger than pixel size, let’s see how it develops.
Adam from Kansas (21:02:45) :
> Could it be that the dynamics of the PDO when you factor in everything including solar variables is more complicated then one would’ve thought?
I’m sure as we learn more we’ll find that the PDO is more complicated, at least compared to what we now now. We could also find that the complexity of the relationship between sun and PDO shows that it is largely coincidental.
Leif Svalgaard (12:38:41) :
KlausB (12:13:19) :
I have no explanation, at least nothing I could consider as – seriously. Any guesses?
Yes, they have nothing to do with each other. That is the simplest explanation.
Leif,
I agree it is the simplest when one considers trying to prove something without a shadow of a doubt. Other than that, your dead wrong.
And I would like to like to know if you’ve ever forecasted something besides solar related items, like the ENSO etc….
Jim Hughes (06:03:19) :
And I would like to like to know if you’ve ever forecasted something besides solar related items, like the ENSO etc….
Some people would consider ENSO solar-related, but we all try to forecast things in our lives, all the time. More seriously, I have forecast [rather successfully] the number of defects [bugs] in large computer systems [which can be done ].
A new cycle 23 spot has popped up on the equator below the 24 spot! Check it out , before it vanishes…
Leif Svalgaard (06:46:34) :
Jim Hughes (06:03:19) :
And I would like to like to know if you’ve ever forecasted something besides solar related items, like the ENSO etc….
Some people would consider ENSO solar-related, but we all try to forecast things in our lives, all the time. More seriously, I have forecast [rather successfully] the number of defects [bugs] in large computer systems [which can be done ].
Leif,
So I am going to assume that you have not made these type of forecasts because of your answer. And I was more concerned about weather-climate since you made a comment about the solar-PDO.
So I will ask you another question. At what point do forecast results matter even if the exact mechanism is not understood? Or do you just dismiss all correct forecasts, if given a good overall base to go by, as just pure luck? Like with ENSO forecasts or even space weather activity level spikes.
Jim Hughes (13:03:51) :
So I will ask you another question. At what point do forecast results matter even if the exact mechanism is not understood? Or do you just dismiss all correct forecasts, if given a good overall base to go by, as just pure luck? Like with ENSO forecasts or even space weather activity level spikes.
There are several kinds of forecasts on different time scales. If I had a method for reliably forecasting something I wouldn’t care too much about why it works as far as using the forecast [although researching why it works would be highly interesting]. The point is just that little word ‘reliable’ and that is where the problem comes in. About dismissing correct forecasts, they are not interesting, it is the incorrect ones that are important. Predicting sunshine during the summer where I live [Calif.] is not hard and if I say you will have sunshine every day my forecast would be correct 98% of the time.
I can readily accept a forecast based on tea leaves if it just works. I don’t know much about ENSO forecasts, but do know about space weather activity, and for the latter we have good mechanisms on various time scales: give me a satellite upstream of the Earth and the data from that can be used to forecast space weather at Earth a few hours later with great accuracy [every little wiggle accounted for] because we know how it works. On a time scale of weeks we can observed the rotating Sun and give good overall forecasts, and on a time scale of years, the solar cycle gives us a good handle on forecasts [of space climate, perhaps].
If I could forecast earthquakes with 99 % accuracy it would make sense to completely evacuate San Francisco every time I predict a quake there, but would that make sense if I’m correct 1% of the time?
NASA was considering bringing the Hubble spacecraft back on the basis of a high forecast of solar activity. We convinced them [and we shall see about how wise that was] that SC24 would be small, so they decided to let Hubble ‘fly over’ SC24. So I do know something about forecasts in real life and with large interests at stake.
It is not clear what your problem is. But before you declare somebody ‘dead wrong’ you might want to justify that declaration other than being simply a disagreement.
There is actually also present a tiny sunspot of cycle 23, just about at the same longitude as these (finally proper) cycle 24 spots but almost spot on the equator. And it’s visible on the disk, so more than a plage. It seems cycle 24 is gaining strength, but 23 isn’t dead yet.
This little pair of spots look like fang marks, almost exactly like the fang marks from a rather large spider bite on the back of my left hand. If I put hand up to the screen next to the SOHO continuum image, they look almost identical. I’ll let you know if my skin mirrors or prophecizes any more Cycle 24 spots.
Leif Svalgaard (13:52:04) :
It is not clear what your problem is. But before you declare somebody ‘dead wrong’ you might want to justify that declaration other than being simply a disagreement.
Leif,
I will let my forecasting record during the past 15 years speak for itself and if I disagree with a conservative viewpoint I will say it. And my June forecast for a heighten solar activity level, the likes not seen since March 2008, seems to be ocurring right on cue.
And I told you about this weeks ago, and I had made it much earlier and many people within the science community are aware of this forecast.
And my developing El Nino forecast, that I had previously talked about around here, also looks to be coming along nicely. And CSU just came out today and downgraded their own Atlantic tropical season forecast from April because of their new thoughts about the El Nino. Or at least it developmental chances.
So are you denying what is going on right now with both of these previously forecasted subject matters?
Jim Hughes (19:14:05) :
I will let my forecasting record during the past 15 years speak for itself
I don’t know your record. Have you are anybody else analyzed the skill score? Do you have a table of graph of that?
And my June forecast for a heighten solar activity level, the likes not seen since March 2008, seems to be ocurring right on cue.
Unless you tell me what it is based on I cannot evaluate it and therefore cannot take it seriously. Everybody [except perhaps David Archibald] predict(ed) that solar activity would pick up by now, even me.
Lief,
There is some significant activity now. How many spots would this count as?
Leif,
I am sorry but saying that the activity level will eventually pick up, and giving a speciifc time frame, like June 2009, are completely two different things. And I specifcally said that it would be the highest level since March 2008. So I gave a measuring stick to go by.
As far as my record and results. I could give you plenty of links to prior forecasts which professionals in the field read-interacted , or even links to newspaper articles which talked about my forecasts, or radio shows , but I see no reason to do this (Thread clutter), and you can believe what you want.
Now I have asked you previously for specific clarifications in regards to forecasts. What I want to know is how far out must you receive a forecast and what do you want spelled out?
Hypothetical Example….Would a forecast for our first X-Class flare to be seen in January 2009 be good enough for you from this far out or would you want it nailed down to a week ?
And BTW I also asked you this before but you did not answer it. I already told you what my Cycle 23 forecast was and who received this but you never did tell me what your call was. Would you mind sharing this because I would like to know what your forecast was for Cycle 23. Thanks in advance.