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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
John W. (05:03:02) :
There is some significant activity now. How many spots would this count as?
1 group with ~10 spots, sunspot number = 20
Jim Hughes (05:32:56) :
As far as my record and results. […], but I see no reason to do this
A link to a table with your skill score [numbers] would go a long way. The local psychic down the road claims a good track record too and has a sign in her window that says ‘since 1979’.
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 ?
Assuming you mean 2010, it still is just guesswork unless you also tell me how you arrived at that. And historically the first really big flare activity occurs about a year after minimum, so your guess is quite reasonable. I will also now predict that 100 years from now, summer will be warmer than winter [method: tilt of Earth’s axis and the annual variation of solar insolation].
Would you mind sharing this because I would like to know what your forecast was for Cycle 23.
Ken Schatten using my [our] method at the solar cycle prediction panel for SC23 urged the panel to consider Rmax=125, my own value would have been 126 [Table 1 of http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf ], Schatten et al (1996) suggested 138+/-30.
In all cases, the method is documented [Rmax = 0.63 * DM in microTesla; the coefficient being Rmax/DM for cycle 22 and 21 (the latter corrected for scattered light); DM being the difference between the North and South polar fields, the ‘dipole moment’] and can be evaluated. Unless yours is too, it cannot be taken seriously.
Leif Svalgaard (06:39:01) :
Ken Schatten using my [our] method at the solar cycle prediction panel for SC23 urged the panel to consider Rmax=125, my own value would have been 126 [Table 1 of http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf ], Schatten et al (1996) suggested 138+/-30.
Re-reading their 1996 paper [section 4] I see [had forgotten] that they actually predicted Rmax = 123 using the polar fields. The 138 was arrived at incorporating the F10.7 which I think just increases the noise a bit.
Leif,
I’ll get back to more of this later but I find your spinning quite incredible. If one puts out enough methods ……your Schatten forecast comments about considering F10.7 etc…… you can come back and say anything.
And I know that Schatten did not predict a 123 max, and your original comments about his forecast were more inline with what he actually forecasted, and how it was perceived by the public, or even his peers.
And I also, for the third time, would like to hear what you forecasted back then. Not an after the fact based upon your later research. So are you telling me that you have been in the field for some thirty years, which I believe you stated to me earlier, but you did not make a Cycle 23 forecast ?
And please no links. My time is short. A straight numerical answer will do.
Jim Hughes (08:24:46) :
And I know that Schatten did not predict a 123 max,
line 16 from the bottom of this paper:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/96GL00451.pdf
And I also, for the third time, would like to hear what you forecasted back then.
I did not forecast anything then as I was also some years in private industry.
And please no links. My time is short.
And yet you have time to waste on this here…
Jim Hughes (08:24:46) :
And please no links. My time is short.
If you can take time out from your busy schedule, Ken Schatten and myself explain the method here [at least the operational part of it; the theoretical explanation why this should work is much longer and will tax your patience a lot harder]:
http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202008%20SH51A-1593.pdf
One can disagree with the prediction of the method, but it is at least laid out for everyone to see. Your prediction can only be taken seriously [at least by me] if it is similarly explained. So, for the fourth time: where is the explanation?
Leif,
You continue to play games by posting research links well past 1996 and this is throwing up red flags to me. Since none of this is relevant to what you “actually” forecasted for Cycle 23. (If you even made one)
Now I am not doubting your expertise in certain matters and your research papers prove that you can dissect certain things and show possible statistical correlations. And you obviously have a great deal of knowledge about many different types things in the solar related field.
But this is much different than actually forecasting a subject matter. Much like a college professor who teaches the science behind meterorology may not be a very good forecaster. Or at least in regards to anything beyond 3-5 days and any veteran long range weather forecaster within the field knows this.
So let’s quit the bull and lay the cards on the table. Your reputation has really taken off the past year thanks to the Internet, which is fine, but it’s not like you have a long standing history of actually forecasting space weather- solar events. Or at least you havn’t shown me anything to prove this yet, like you want me to do.
And I’m even willing to accept your word about these forecasts , unlike yourself. So your silence speaks volumes because we both know that you have to be careful about what you say, in regards to what you have or have not forecasted before.
And as for scientific proof to my own methodologies. I have already mentioned that I have no direct proof to the mechanisms behind these possible relationships. So there are no smoke and mirrors with me.
And I am not going to share these forecasting methods when others can possibly make money off of these things. And most long range forecasters, whether they be at NOAA & CPC, the private sector, or wherever, already know this about me. Not unless they have been living under a rock in the weather forecasting community.
So I just forecast events and then sit back and watch the results just like any other forecaster within the different fields. And people within the meteorological – climate field pay attention to some of my outlooks, and they are taken seriously, but you are free to believe what you want.
Jim Hughes (07:31:43) :
So I just forecast events and then sit back and watch the results just like any other forecaster within the different fields. And people within the meteorological – climate field pay attention to some of my outlooks, and they are taken seriously, but you are free to believe what you want.
If you’ll not disclose your methods, then they are not to taken seriously [by me, at least]. Same goes for Corbyn’s. That you make money off them is good for you, a lot of people make money on gullibility, even Al Gore. And you, too, are free to believe as you want, but you must expect some objections if you peddle it as science, as it ain’t, unless it be discussed and recognized [not necessarily accepted] by scientists.
Leif,
At least I finally got something staight from you even if it was just your opinion about me, or even Piers. Which is more than I can say about your other responses to me.
And for the record I do not make any money at this and it has just been a hobby of mine that I picked up on about fifteen years ago while wanting to know what type of weather was ahead for work. Since no governmental organizations were giving out any extended forecasts for well out in advance.
Which then lead to my own solar research that I have continued on with. And I figured this was important, even as a self taught layman, because of the lack of skilled forecasters out there within your field. Which Cycle 23 showed as well as even some of the ones for Cycle 24.
But there’s no denying one thing. The individuals who have used the planets for forecasting the solar cycles, whether it be Cycle 23 or 24, have clearly outperformed the upper echelon of your community. And you were not the first to forecast a lower level for Cycle 24 even if most around this place, or elsewhere, mistakenly believe so.
But it’s always nice to see mainstream science support a myth. Much like they do with GW. Or at least the way they make it a bigger issue then what it is. As in our influence, and not the suns role, which forces certain atmospheric and oceanic teleconnections.
BTW….And of course you’ll want proof …… we’ll see an El Nino form this year like I have have previously forecasted , but we are also more than likely going to see another one follow in 2010-11. (70% chance ) Which will be stronger. But you’ll just chalk it up to a lucky guess even though it is highly unusual to see back to back El Ninos.
But maybe your unaware of this since your not a climate expert. Or maybe I am mistaken and you are one of these also.
Jim Hughes (15:58:18) :
At least I finally got something staight from you
Good for you.
And for the record I do not make any money at this
Then I see no reason not to disclose the method, lest it is too embarrassing…
But it’s always nice to see mainstream science support a myth. Much like they do with GW.
You finally showed your true colors…
And of course you’ll want proof
No, I’m not interested in proofs, just in methods. Everybody claim they have proof…
But maybe your unaware of this since your not a climate expert.
It is then good to learn from one like yourself.
Jim Hughes (15:58:18) :
But there’s no denying one thing. The individuals who have used the planets for forecasting the solar cycles, whether it be Cycle 23 or 24, have clearly outperformed the upper echelon of your community.
And its goner get even better Jim…so much new data.
Leif Svalgaard (17:36:18) :
Then I see no reason not to disclose the method, lest it is too embarrassing…
Why would anyone get embarassed for possibly trying to extend our knowledge about certain relationships? Although some people get intimidated real easy so they might get rattled when an individual like yourself speaks out against them. But thankfully I’m not one of them.
And I’m also hoping to get in the long range forecasting field if the economy turns around. And I’ve had some minor interactions with some within the business. But their not hiring right now.
And I also do not have a degree so I’ve either got to be the best con guy in the world or them the dumbest. Take your pick.
——–
But it’s always nice to see mainstream science support a myth. Much like they do with GW.
You finally showed your true colors…
So I’m a stern AGW person because I criticized how a large part of the community has pushed an unproven agenda as fact ? And FWIW I’m all for cleaning up the earth or for keeping it from getting worse. Both air and water, so your wrong.
And the activity level of the sun, or at least these double Gleisberg minimums, are going to continue to get higher up until 2500 AD . So it couldn’t hurt our warming chances even if you believe that the solar – climate connection plays a bigger role than GHG’s.
———-
And of course you’ll want proof
No, I’m not interested in proofs, just in methods. Everybody claim they have proof…
So this will always be your answer regardless of what happens with my forecasts. Which is fine but your living in a dream world. Because your not able to seperate the need to know the methodology for acception, with the need of the forecast, regardless of the unproven method, if the indivdual has a better track record than most.
And your able to do this because your also not relying upon the ENSO state when it comes to making a living. And maybe you should consider just how many dollars are invested in the market, weather related wise. Like in the energy business. Because all they really want is a statistical edge.
——–
But maybe your unaware of this since your not a climate expert.
It is then good to learn from one like yourself.
What areas? Maybe I can still help without sharing to many methods. Or maybe I can share what I’ve already talked about.
Here’s a couple of links to some of my “out of the box” wacky thinking. Which are basically early building blocks to work on in the long range forecasting game.
The first one I wrote about three years ago and the graphics are pathetic but it’s hard to teach an old dog new tricks and computer graphics were obviously a foreign language to me back than……probably still are.
It is about the possible cyclical relationship between the Polar Eurasian Teleconnection and the onset of major forbush decreases (Or higher geo-less GCR’s) during the ascending phase of the new solar cycle. I called it the PET Cycle. I also point out a couple of other relationships that seem to coincide. So I am looking forward to the next onset to see what happens.
PET Cycle
http://www.easternuswx.com/bb/index.php?showtopic=103909
TWC waves …
A short discussion I wrote up this past winter to forecast certain teleconnections well out by the use of the current wave pattern trends at the time. And I am going to assume that you know about certain AAM related variables.
http://www.easternuswx.com/bb/index.php?showtopic=184842
Jim Hughes (06:30:35) :
And I also do not have a degree so I’ve either got to be the best con guy in the world or them the dumbest. Take your pick.
Could be some of both. But, your chances of business will be MUCH higher if your method is public and has been vetted by scientists. My colleague Ken Schatten issues [and has done this for decades now] a quarterly solar forecast for NASA [and other paying customers] using my [our] method and benefits from a published method. These agencies would never pay for anything that was not documented. So, no reason at all not to disclose your method.
So I’m a stern AGW person because I criticized how a large part of the community has pushed an unproven agenda as fact ?
You cannot generalize to the ‘rest’ of science from the AGW nonsense.
And the activity level of the sun, or at least these double Gleisberg minimums, are going to continue to get higher up until 2500 AD .
kind of flies in the face of other planetary influence people pushing a Grand Minimum.
if the indivdual has a better track record than most.
Your track record is not quantified [skill-score?] so cannot be compared.
I also point out a couple of other relationships that seem to coincide.
and are thus coincidences…
Leif Svaalgard (07:45:09)
And I also do not have a degree so I’ve either got to be the best con guy in the world or them the dumbest. Take your pick.
Could be some of both. But, your chances of business will be MUCH higher if your method is public and has been vetted by scientists.
No doubt. But I also do not think that any business would keep me around for long if I brought nothing to the table. And I also doubt that any forecasting outfit would share what I brought. So it’s sort of a wash from your perspective.
——————-
And the activity level of the sun, or at least these double Gleisberg minimums, are going to continue to get higher up until 2500 AD .
kind of flies in the face of other planetary influence people pushing a Grand Minimum.
I have never looked at things like others. At least not the originals who went by way of the CM, like Landscheidt.
——————
if the indivdual has a better track record than most.
Your track record is not quantified [skill-score?] so cannot be compared.
And you know this how when you actually know nothing about me or what I have previously forecasted ?
—————–
I also point out a couple of other relationships that seem to coincide.
and are thus coincidences…
I used the term coincide because it was added on later after the intial discussion was written. So I didn’t dig deeper into the relationship. But they tie in quite easily if you understand the behavior of the wintertime stratosphere and how this relates to FW’s, or even ozone levels.
And I’m assuming once again that you know that the indice state, -/+, of the Polar Eurasian teleconnection, can be indicative of the state of the circumpolar vortex.
Jim Hughes (09:58:45) :
No doubt. But I also do not think that any business would keep me around for long if I brought nothing to the table.
If you brought a well-documented and validated method to the table, I think you would get more business.
I have never looked at things like others. At least not the originals who went by way of the CM, like Landscheidt.
Well, that could be a problem, because now you have to explain to your customers why not.
And you know this how when you actually know nothing about me or what I have previously forecasted ?
I know this only from the fact that you have not provided a table of skill-scores.
And I’m assuming once again that you know that the indice state, -/+, of the Polar Eurasian teleconnection, can be indicative of the state of the circumpolar vortex.
As I’m sure the ‘official’ ENSO forecasters are also aware.
Geoff Sharp ( 23:12:01)
And its goner get even better Jim…so much new data.
The truth always surfaces sooner or later so I am not to worried about the naysayers.
Leif Svaalgard (11:11:46)
And I’m assuming once again that you know that the indice state, -/+, of the Polar Eurasian teleconnection, can be indicative of the state of the circumpolar vortex.
“As I’m sure the ‘official’ ENSO forecasters are also aware.”
Yes they are but this has nothing to do with the context of my reply since I was not talking about the ENSO’s relationship with the PET Cycle, just the POL.
But maybe you can define “offical” for me anyway since no reliable ENSO state can be forecasted well out by the models, which they rely heavily upon.
And some of us have lead the league in batting average over the years with our own ENSO calls and you don’t have to wait eleven years to find out who is good or who is bad. So even the most brilliant minds have to take a seat on the bench after they strike out. And their peers pretty much look the other way now since they know that they are basically winging it. And we all know how to read a model forecast anyway.
And I challenge you to find one professional in the weather forecasting field, and many seem to post around around here, who could say that about my own long range ENSO calls….winging it.