There’s no guessing about these. They aren’t anemic sunspecks that may or may not have been visible a couple of centuries ago. They are the real deal. Sunspot group 1026 on the lower left edge and newly formed group 1027 above the equator. While a couple of spots aren’t yet enough to end the solar drought we’ve seen, they are encouraging.
All of the spots are about the size of the Earth. You may recall that group 1026 was first, ahem, “spotted” by the stereo behind system which we covered last week on WUWT. The two groups have the potential to produce some solar flares. Group 1026 produced a few B-Class solar flares, 1027 has been quiet. Here’s the SWPC report defining both regions:
:Product: Solar Region Summary :Issued: 2009 Sep 23 0031 UTC # Prepared jointly by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, # Space Weather Prediction Center and the U.S. Air Force. # Joint USAF/NOAA Solar Region Summary SRS Number 266 Issued at 0030Z on 23 Sep 2009 Report compiled from data received at SWO on 22 Sep I. Regions with Sunspots. Locations Valid at 22/2400Z Nmbr Location Lo Area Z LL NN Mag Type 1026 S30E54 217 0030 Cso 09 02 Beta 1027 N24E32 239 0040 Dro 05 04 Beta IA. H-alpha Plages without Spots. Locations Valid at 22/2400Z Sep Nmbr Location Lo None II. Regions Due to Return 23 Sep to 25 Sep Nmbr Lat Lo None Source: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/latest/SRS.txt
The 10.7 cm solar radio flux took a jump to 75 today, it may go higher as 1026/1027 continues to grow. It remains to be seen whether this is just a temporary energetic burst, with a lapse back to spotlessness, or if it heralds a new more active period of solar cycle 24.
:Product: Solar Region Summary :Issued: 2009 Sep 23 0031 UTC # Prepared jointly by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, # Space Weather Prediction Center and the U.S. Air Force. # Joint USAF/NOAA Solar Region Summary SRS Number 266 Issued at 0030Z on 23 Sep 2009 Report compiled from data received at SWO on 22 Sep I. Regions with Sunspots. Locations Valid at 22/2400Z Nmbr Location Lo Area Z LL NN Mag Type 1026 S30E54 217 0030 Cso 09 02 Beta 1027 N24E32 239 0040 Dro 05 04 Beta IA. H-alpha Plages without Spots. Locations Valid at 22/2400Z Sep Nmbr Location Lo None II. Regions Due to Return 23 Sep to 25 Sep Nmbr Lat Lo None
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Solaemon Solar Cycle 23/24 transition pages fnally updated 23 September!!
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC23web/SCweb11.pdf
Sun may be heading into period of extended calm not seen since 17th century!
Via Climate Depot
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/40456
Pamela/Bill … I think you are underestimating the influence of the sun on our climate (e.g. effect of solar wind). There is a lot we do not know about our star … it would seem from the recent events that we are learning new things all the time.
Jon
Pete (20:20:06) :
Your comment is awaiting moderation
By this you really mean:
Your comment is awaiting censorship
Self righteous prick.
__________________________
My comments always start out “awaiting moderation” and I have never been snipped. Also, “Peter,” Calling someone a prick is impolite.
(for non- U. S. of A. readers, “peter” is an old colloquialism for… well, you know [grin].
Leif Svalgaard (02:50:56) :
tallbloke (00:47:44) :
Hey Leif, looks like my prediction of a month or two ago about the cycle getting going in a month or two is coming to pass!
If you say every day it will rain tomorrow, sooner or later it will.
I realised after I posted that you’d come back with some such BS.
I have only made one prediction, backed by a graph I produced.
You are becoming noticeably careless with the truth.
Ah yes, here we are:
tallbloke (06:53:39) : 6th August
I have developed a promising prediction technique.
Here is my prediction for for the Ap index to 2015, with hindcast to demonstrate the techniques power. Ap measures geomagnetic storms, so it means we might be seeing some sunspots within the next couple of months too.
http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/?action=view¤t=ap-prediction.gif
So leif, which other sunspot predictions did I make to warrant your condescension? Put up or shut up.
tallbloke (14:44:12) :
Ap measures geomagnetic storms, so it means we might be seeing some sunspots within the next couple of months too.
Unless you spell out how the prediction is made, it has no value [and the fit is not all that good], and of course we’ll be seeing some spots in the months to come.
Ok, I would believe that these are spots Galileo would have seen in his telescope.
I’m sure Scheiner would have seen them, for he drew spots of this size in 1625.
Leif Svalgaard (16:43:10) :
tallbloke (14:44:12) :
Ap measures geomagnetic storms, so it means we might be seeing some sunspots within the next couple of months too.
Unless you spell out how the prediction is made, it has no value [and the fit is not all that good], and of course we’ll be seeing some spots in the months to come.
So you’ve changed the subject and ducked the issue of your accusation that I had made lots of predictions so one was bound to come true. Unsurprising, because you don’t have a leg to stand on.
To my recollection, we’ve had just 3 decent sized sunspots recently, after many months of solar blankness. This fits my prediction curve. All the predictions by NASA’s solar physicists relying on the Babcock Leighton dynamo theory have failed spectacularly, predicting a strong ramp up of solar cycle 24 nearly two years ago.
How wrong they were.
I will publish details of how my prediction was made in my own sweet time. For me, already knowing the details, it has plenty of value.
We’ll see if solar activity continues to follow my curve.
http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/?action=view¤t=ap-prediction.gif
By The way Leif, in our earlier cosmological discussion, where I questioned the correctness of the big bang theory, I raised the issue of the ‘galactic megawalls’ which you said had been superceded and disproved by newer obs. This claim appears to be incorrect, unless you can direct me to a study?
Tomes makes the following points.
1. Every paper that has been published that has sufficently accurate data (as described by Tifft) and looks for smaller scale redshift periodicity in galaxies has found at least one of the quanta 72, 36, 24, 12 km/s and often more than one. There have been many replications and not a single negative result. This is called the scientific method and criticizing sample sizes is not an adequate response because different samples have been used by different researchers.
2. Papers that use the correlation function in 3D do not show these shorter period variations. That proves that they are not spatial structures and that the interpretation of redshift as totally a velocity measurement is wrong.
3. Most papers that have looked at large scale periodicity have found the 12,800 km/s period (z=.043 or 128/h Mpc) and often fractions of this also (1/2 and 1/3). These periods are found using either redshift periodicity or looking for 3D spacings. There are papers that I referenced showing the clear 3D structure as a type of lattice.
4. A number of studies have been performed in special frames to investigate the whole sky synchronization of smaller scale (~72 km/s) redshift periodicities. All published studies confirm the presence of such frames. New data continues to support that conclusion. This totally undermines the conventional interpretation of redshift. If it were correct then the whole universe would be a huge conspiracy to make the centre of our galaxy a very special place. I don’t think that anyone believes that.
5. The inescapable conclusion is that Arp and Narlikar are right and that these 72 km/s and such periodicities are changes by steps in redshift over time, and nothing to do with distance. Because the time taken to travel a distance by light is a linear one, it just looks like a distance relationship. However at the distance scale of galaxies the relationship breaks down because there are traveling wavefronts where the redshift of a galaxy will suddenly change by 72 km/s. So you cannot use that information to calculate distances at that scale.
6. In general galaxies cannot be moving even by 20 km/s. If they were, the whole sky periodicity would be destroyed. And it is there for all to see. In fact, it would be destroyed in even galaxy pairs because of the different orientations that we see them at and the 72 km/s difference between them is prevalent.
7. The virial theorum is not a valid basis for anything because it uses the assumption that redshift measures velocity, and it clearly does not.
Both regions have decreased in size and 1026 has nearly vanished, both spots at their peak combined are smaller than 1024 yet the sunspot number is 32 today? Am I missing something here or is this just good old-fashioned (business-as-usual) bias?
http://www.solen.info/solar/
“Region 11026 decayed further and could soon become spotless.
Region 11027 decayed significantly losing spots and penumbral area.”
Mr. Alex (01:53:18) :
There is no bias here. Measurements and spot counts are two different animals. You might say that they are not correlated, as they depart company at both the low and high ends.
Blame it on Wolf.
The Measurements:
SSN11026
date UT umb. pen. spot faculae
09/21/09 19:12 0.73 58 59 130
09/22/09 04:03 0.42 104 105 242
09/22/09 12:29 1.37 57.3 58.6 370
09/22/09 20:32 1.45 64.2 65.6 511
09/22/09 22:36 1.76 48.2 50.0 443
09/23/09 07:00 1.24 54.8 56.0 447
09/23/09 14:23 0.80 35.7 36.5 487
09/23/09 22:24 0.84 48.7 49.5 391
09/24/09 07:39 0.51 25.7 26.2 337
09/24/09 16:00 0.12 24.4 24.5 238
09/25/09 00:00 0.11 7.5 7.6 153
09/25/09 05:17 0.20 5.0 5.2 122
SSN11027
date UT umb. pen. spot
09/22/09 12:29 1.30 42 43
09/22/09 20:32 5.63 75 86
09/22/09 22:36 5.29 118 123
09/23/09 07:00 4.76 171 176
09/23/09 14:23 4.83 146 151
09/23/09 22:24 6.30 122 128
09/24/09 07:39 4.20 97.3 102
09/24/09 16:00 3.89 78.6 82.5
09/25/09 00:00 3.80 73.3 77.1
09/25/09 05:17 3.50 52.1 55.6
So… when (for the amateur viewer with binoculars) does a “group” become a “spot”. As these areas shrink away, is there a point at which they are counted differently?
Strange, but on the Soho EIT 284 (09.25 – 13.06) image the SH spot looks much more energetic compared to the more visible NH spots on the Soho MDI Continuum image.
Anyone know why this should be.
Also, is Paul Herrman of Solar Terrestrial Data likely looking at the same image of the sun as we get with the SOHO image on the right border of this page? If so, I also wonder about the 32-count.
tallbloke (00:22:25) :
This claim appears to be incorrect, unless you can direct me to a study?
How can you even say that, when you don’t know about a study. What you are saying is just a statement of your ignorance. Anyway, here is one of several links: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506366 Most Scientists normally don’t waster breath on refuting nonsense.
Tomes is ‘not even wrong’. This is just incredible nonsense. BTW, galaxies move in space around in their various groups and clumps, but the cosmological redshift is not due to movement at att. There is no velocity. It is space that is expanding, not the galaxies moving.
rbateman (08:53:55) :
You might say that they are not correlated
Spot counts and areas are very strongly correlated on the scale where it matters, e.g. monthly, or yearly. From day to day the correlation is also strong, but complex. If you have a group with area of dark pixels of 5000 microhems, you can be DAMN sure it has spots too. Conversely, if it has no spots, there will be no dark pixels and hence an area of zero.
Leif Svalgaard (10:28:58) :
Where the spot count and the area measurements agree is numerical in nature.
What matters is a matter of opinion, and source of much confusion.
Day to day, the correlation varies according to the size of the spot, being way off when at low values and high values.
Which is to say that the Sunspot count has it’s uses: High precision not being one of them.
This is why so many keep stumbling over the same issue, Leif.
They expect high precision out of modern science, and when they examine the spot count, they don’t find it, and it puzzles them.
The answer to that puzzle is that some in high places decided in the late 70’s that measuring spots was too burdensome.
Ok. The Galaxy Zoo project started off with the same assumption, but later discovered that even ordinary folks enjoy being more precise, and they are capable of it.
Back to the Wolf Sunpot Count system:
It is this natural bent towards more precision that led to the counting of smaller and smaller spots at the same value.
Self-feeding problem.
Tenuc (09:27:11) :
Not entirely, but 1026 is producing a lot of facula (brighter than the quiet sun), whereas 1027 is not.
1024, just before it went off the limb July 10, began producing facula. The rebirth of this area as 1026 began (from what we can see) with even more facula.
I can still project this bright area as of a few minutes ago, being 1/3 radii from the limb.
bill (20:01:23) :
Smokey (19:16:00) :
“This little corner of the web” is the world’s “Best Science” site, and has more traffic than any of the censorship prone alarmist sites.
Traffic does not equal quality of science.
Logically then, “consensus does not equal quality of science”.
One thing for sure, the Oulu Neutron counter is still on the up tick. The trend seems to be accelerating and now looks like the levels are now higher than they have been since they started counting.
Leif Svalgaard (10:28:58) :
tallbloke (00:22:25) :
This claim appears to be incorrect, unless you can direct me to a study?
How can you even say that, when you don’t know about a study. What you are saying is just a statement of your ignorance. Anyway, here is one of several links: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506366 Most Scientists normally don’t waster breath on refuting nonsense.
Well Leif, what you’ve written is ‘not even wrong’. Read into the subject. The data used by the authors you link to does not have sufficient resolution to detect the ‘quantised redshift’ periodicities I was referring to, and in any case it is entire galaxies which exhibit this, not just quasars.
Tomes is ‘not even wrong’. This is just incredible nonsense. BTW, galaxies move in space around in their various groups and clumps, but the cosmological redshift is not due to movement at att. There is no velocity. It is space that is expanding, not the galaxies moving.
It is you who is wrong. The local effect of the motion of Earth and the solar system relative to the galactic centre, and the motion of our local galaxy relative to the CMBR need to be calculated into the equation, which then reveals the harmonically related steps in redshift observed by Tift, Arp, Guthrie, Napier, Arlikar and others. Newer observations have not refuted this, and the newer obs you referred to don’t have the requisite resolution. The local motion of clustered galaxies at the distances under discussion is negligible, and can be accounted for through averaging of the cluster anyway.
Get off your high horse and get your facts straight before trying to rubbish people who obviously know more than you about the subject.
This is what I’ve come to expect from watching Jan Janssens’ trend analysis, that the sun is about 3/4’s of the way through this long minimum.
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html#Evolution
If its spotless trend asymptotes before January 2010 it’d be bucking the general trend for minima of this nature. It’s not nearly a full 2 SD from the median for 19th C. solar cycles, but it’s well off the median amongst the quieter minima of that time.
If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck & smells like a duck …