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.
Leif Svalgaard (14:28:14) :
tallbloke (13:50:22) :
“while Fig. 2 is a plot of the redshift differences.”
Since you have read it so carefully, perhaps you could explain that is plotted. Differences between what? There are 48 numbers in the game.
My reading of it is that fig2 plots the differences between the 48 redshifts. This would yield a falling factorial of 1.24E61 results… I think. Is that enough to spread around the bins without leaving too many empty ones? 😉
Leif Svalgaard (14:29:14) :
tallbloke (13:50:22) :
The whole point of the harmonic theory is that it scales.
Explain in your own words what that means
[Really! I mean Reeeaaalllly!!!!! Stop it RIGHT NOW ~ charles the disappointed moderator]
Ah no, not a falling factorial.
48+47+46+45 etc
not
48x47x46x45 etc
In fact, to avoid unnecessary pedantry, it’s 47+46+45……+3+2+1 results. Which I may or may not bother to calculate.
Suffice it to say, Napier and Guthrie are not numpties.
CTM, Ok, best behaviour, promise.
Hmm, this scrumpy is feisty stuff.
tallbloke (15:30:12) :
In fact, to avoid unnecessary pedantry, it’s 47+46+45……+3+2+1 results. Which I may or may not bother to calculate.
Carl F. Gauss [as a child] did it thus (47+1)+(46+2)+(45+3)+…(1+47) = 48+48+48+…48 = 48*47 = 2256. Then divide by two, because we have counted everything twice = 1128.
The paper now declares: “Fig. 1 shows the power spectrum of the 48 redshifts obtained after subtraction of this V, while Fig. 2 is a plot of the redshift differences.”
I read that as the difference after the subtraction, of which there should be 48. If we do it your way, there should be 1128/100 [because there are ~100 bins] = 11 per bin which is much lower than the average which I eyeball to be around 17. My point [and that why this discussion is of value] is that you are are too quick to just take their [poorly expressed] word for what the Figure shows, without thinking about if it is reasonable or what it means.
In calculating the difference between galaxy a and galaxy b it does not make much sense first having to subtract the Galactic velocity Vg, because (Va-Vg)-(Vb-Vg)=Va-Vb, so Vg doesn’t enter the picture at all. So, the paper does not survive the simple smell test as all scientists are trained to make. Only pseudo-science enthusiasts will blindly accept something like this without scrutiny.
Leif Svalgaard (16:19:05) :
pseudo-science enthusiasts
More insults.
I will forward your comments to Guthrie and Napier for their amusement.
You still seem to be confused about the velocity being subtracted, and what the reason for subtracting it is. I tried to make it clear for you by adding it in parentheses in a prior post, but there you go.
At least you made is as far as agreeing with me that there were more than 48 results to be plotted in Fig 2 after all.
tallbloke (16:49:11) :
You still seem to be confused about the velocity being subtracted, and what the reason for subtracting it is. I tried to make it clear for you by adding it in parentheses in a prior post, but there you go.
No such parentheses visible
At least you made is as far as agreeing with me that there were more than 48 results to be plotted in Fig 2 after all.
No, only 48 should be plotted. We agree that they plotted many more, but their numbers do not hold up and they shouldn’t have as it does not make sense. E.g. assume that half of them have a speed of 1000 and the other half 1072. Then there would be a very clear quantization. Subtracting one of the 1072s from the 23 others of that number would give you 23 zeroes [and the same for each of those 23 when subtracted from 1072], not exactly useful for quantization.
Where is the insult in called you an ‘enthusiast’ 🙂
I admit that the ‘enthusiasm’ is conjecture on my part part, the pseudo-science is demonstration on your part.
Reply: Leif could you tone it down..pretty please? ~ ctm
“Fig. 1 shows the power
spectrum of the 48 redshifts obtained after subtraction of this V (solar motion around galactic centre)
Perhaps I overlooked this little one. But since the solar motion Vg around the galactic center is the same for every one of the 48 spirals, subtracting it makes no difference, as I showed: (Va-Vg)-(Vb-Vg)=Va-Vb, regardless of Vg.
Could we get back to the Sun?
The flux is falling back again and the spots are fading off.
Nothing in the immediate STEREO Behind or on straight ahead forming.
Prognosis: xxxxxx
rbateman (17:38:47) :
Could we get back to the Sun?
Cycle 24 is moving right along:
http://www.leif.org/research/Active-Region-Count.png
The following talks may be of interest [from SOHO-23: http://www.soho23.org/ ]
Updating the Historical Sunspot Record
Leif Svalgaard(INVITED)
Affiliations: Stanford Univ.
Abstract: We show that the amplitude (dD) of the diurnal variation of the magnetic Declination [or the equivalent East Component, Y] is a reliable indicator of solar Far UltraViolet radiation (FUV) and of its proxy, the sunspot Number, R [as was known already to Rudolf Wolf ~160 years ago]. FUV creates and maintains the E-layer of the ionosphere, determining the conductivity, and hence the strength of the current causing the diurnal variation. We show how the changes of sunspot observers are faithfully reflected as discontinuities in the relationship between dD and R. On the whole, sunspot numbers before ~1945 should be adjusted upwards by 20% and before Wolf’s death by another 30%, with the net result that 20th century solar activity does not seem significantly larger than that for the 19th. Support for the above conclusion comes from a comparison with the Greenwich Sunspot Areas which indicate a 17.5% increase of Rz coincident with Max Waldmeier’s tenure as observer in Zurich. The Mount Wilson Ca II K-line index recently derived by Bertello also indicate a 20% increase in Rz ~1945. From 1934 researchers have measured the foF2 frequency of the ionospheric F-layer and found that this measure has a very strong correlation with the sunspot number. It was later noted that the correlation changed ~1945 and has been different since, consistent with the same ~20 percent artificial increase in Rz introduced by Waldmeier. Each of these indications by itself would be just a curious discrepancy for which an ad-hoc explanation might be concocted. Collectively, however, they provide strong evidence for quantifiable inhomogeneities in the sunspot series coincident with changes of observer, and we propose that the series be corrected accordingly.
Title: Does the current minimum help validate (or invalidate) cycle prediction methods?
David Hathaway (INVITED)
Affiliation: NASA
Abstract: A large number of prediction techniques can be used to predict the amplitude and timing of a solar cycle. Of the methods used previously two use indicators that stand out as providing the most reliable and accurate predictions geomagnetic precursors and the Suns polar field strength. When applied properly (i.e. waiting until close to minimum) both methods indicate a small amplitude for Cycle 24. These predictions are consistent with the long low minimum we have observed small cycles start late and leave behind a low minimum. Recently, Flux Transport Dynamo Models have also been used to predict Cycle 24. Two predictions have been offered. One uses sunspot areas and position in previous cycles and a low diffusivity in the convection zone and predicts a very large Cycle 24. The other resets the polar fields at minimum and uses a high diffusivity in the convection zone and predicts a small Cycle 24. Both of these Flux Transport Dynamo Models produce strong polar fields and short cycles when the meridional flow is fast. Measurements of the meridional flow over Cycle 23 now show that while the meridional flow slowed from Cycle 23 minimum in 1996 to Cycle 23 maximum in 2000-2001 it then increased on the approach to Cycle 24 minimum in 2008 to speeds significantly higher than were seen at the previous minimum. In these models this higher meridional flow speed should produce strong polar fields and a short solar cycle contrary to the observed behavior. These observations, along with others, suggest that Flux Transport Dynamo Models do not properly capture solar cycle behavior and are not yet ready to provide predictions of solar cycle behavior.
more at: http://www.leif.org/research/
The first graphic is interesting.
The angle of both SC23 and SC24 at crossing is very shallow.
Now, as for the SSN record, wouldn’t it be better if you took Wolf’s relation (Area * .27)^.775 and synthesize the SSN. If you know the area (and you have the images to back it up) you will retain history and correct the error.
I understand what you are trying to do, I just don’t see why you have chosen to correct that which is not in error over that which is in error. You have the images from which most of period you are considering to correct for, so ultimately you could recount.
Why not just recount and lay down hard & fast sizing rules for counting?
But, this is not really what I would like to see being discussed. I would like to discuss the current events and progress of the Sun, as it exists today.
Reminds me of reality TV. Too much drama for me…
Ed (20:03:16) :
Reminds me of reality TV. Too much drama for me…
Leif is just upset that he was one again wrong with his prediction (flux +80)
rbateman (20:01:22) :
Why not just recount and lay down hard & fast sizing rules for counting?
Will only go back to 1875, and the most interesting part of the record is the early part. But, I would welcome a recount as important in itself. There are people that do not want a revision of the SSN, because the current [wrong] version suits their purpose well.
I understand what you are trying to do, I just don’t see why you have chosen to correct that which is not in error over that which is in error
you’ll have to explain this to me, as you lost me.
Yes, I know you predicted 80+ flux Leif, but it didn’t happen.
The Sun has been doing funny things for almost 3 years now, nothing new there.
I am curious as to what you saw that led you to make that prediction, and why you think the Sun didn’t do that.
Let’s see if the 1026 or 1027 areas hold onto thier signatures like 1024 did.
That process was in super-slo-mo.
Leif Svalgaard (22:42:38) :
Correct that which is not in error=Wolf’s era getting increased.
It is each successive wave that gets higher.
Wolf’s relation is (A*.27)^.775
Wolferer’s relation is (A*.295)^.775
Waldmeier’s is (A*.353)^.775.
Recounting will take us back to 1875 and Wolf’s counting days.
the_Butcher (20:42:34) :
with his prediction (flux +80)
Was a bust at 77, but good to know that somebody is paying attention.
Leif Svalgaard (17:29:12) :
“Fig. 1 shows the power
spectrum of the 48 redshifts obtained after subtraction of this V (solar motion around galactic centre)
Perhaps I overlooked this little one.
Perhaps this is because you didn’t read the paper or my replies to your confusion with an unprejudiced eye.
But since the solar motion Vg around the galactic center is the same for every one of the 48 spirals, subtracting it makes no difference, as I showed: (Va-Vg)-(Vb-Vg)=Va-Vb, regardless of Vg.
Clearly you still don’t understand the paper. Maybe the view from the high horse is obscured by cloud. 😉
Your point is true for the Virgo cluster, but the paper by Guthrie and Napier is a much wider study using whole sky data For other cosmic longitudes and latitudes the solar velocity relative to the galactic centre makes a difference of up to +- 220km/s.
One of the upshots of the discoveries is another confirmation reckoning of the absolute motion of the solar system relative to the rest frame If I understand the following passage correctly.
“For differential redshifts within groups spanning at most a few degrees over the sky,
the solar motion correction is differential and of second order. This suggests that
varying V in speed and direction might yield less ambiguity from ‘ghost peaks’ and
so yield a unique solar vector. This turns out to be the case: Fig. 5 shows that the
signal optimizes for a correcting vector indistinguishable, within the errors, from the
solar motion as determined from Galactic HI observations and stellar kinematics.
The nature of the signal being so optimized can be seen by simply plotting the data
corrected for this galactocentric vector (Fig. 6). It is clear that these new, highprecision
data confirm the hypothesis under test. A similar exercise for the 48 Virgo
cluster spirals does not yield a definite Galactic latitude, but the derived solar speed
and longitude are, within their uncertainties, the same.”
rbateman (20:01:22) :
But, this is not really what I would like to see being discussed. I would like to discuss the current events and progress of the Sun, as it exists today.
To keep the discussion clean [no L&P], the next max in F10.7 flux is predicted at 120 in 5 years time, so to climb from the current 70 to 120. F10.7 need only increase by 10 sfu per year, or 0.8 per month. At its minimum value back in 2008, F10.7 was 67, so perhaps we could forecast 77 by year’s end, although the beginning of the climb may be a bit shallower, so let’s make it 75.
tallbloke (23:25:22) :
Your point is true for the Virgo cluster
Which is what we were discussing [their Figure 2 of 48 spirals].
Today we have hundred of thousands of measured speeds and they show no quantization. But instead of just blindly flogging the old horse, how about explaining the rationale for computing the ~1000 differences [and what they are] plotted rather than the 48. I have read the paper carefully, and explained what my problem with it is, now it is your turn to in your own words expressing your own understanding of their procedure, and explain the numerical discrepancies that I have pointed out.
tallbloke (23:25:22) :
the solar velocity relative to the galactic centre makes a difference of up to +- 220km/s.
So, you go along with their claim that our Galaxy is the center of the universe? Like these people: http://creation.com/our-galaxy-is-the-centre-of-the-universe-quantized-redshifts-show
Leif Svalgaard (17:18:12) :
tallbloke (16:49:11) :
At least you made is as far as agreeing with me that there were more than 48 results to be plotted in Fig 2 after all.
No, only 48 should be plotted. We agree that they plotted many more, but their numbers do not hold up and they shouldn’t have as it does not make sense.
You already proved to yourself that the differences between 48 redshifts added up to eleventy hundred results so no more of this nonsense please.
E.g. assume that half of them have a speed of 1000 and the other half 1072. Then there would be a very clear quantization. Subtracting one of the 1072s from the 23 others of that number would give you 23 zeroes [and the same for each of those 23 when subtracted from 1072], not exactly useful for quantization.
Well the actual data shows over a thousand differing results and confirms the quantisation around 71km/s. I think you are just muddying the waters by casting aspersions on Guthrie and Napiers peer reviewed mainstream science in order to draw attention away from the importance of their result. The importance being that a proper and unprejudiced assessment would require the letting go of a lot of long held beliefs and the slaying of a couple of sacred cows.
Anyway, I’m tired of putting up with the constant stream of insults I get in return for trying to help uncloud your understanding, so I’ll let Robert have the floor with his more on topic discussion. I hope he won’t mind if I join in with a couple of observations regarding your revision of sunspot number history.
Max in 2014, September?
Apologies to Robert, Leif replied while I was writing my last post. This is my last post on this matter for the time being.
Leif Svalgaard (23:48:53) :
tallbloke (23:25:22) :
Your point is true for the Virgo cluster
Which is what we were discussing [their Figure 2 of 48 spirals].
Today we have hundred of thousands of measured speeds and they show no quantization. But instead of just blindly flogging the old horse, how about explaining the rationale for computing the ~1000 differences [and what they are] plotted rather than the 48. I have read the paper carefully, and explained what my problem with it is, now it is your turn to in your own words expressing your own understanding of their procedure, and explain the numerical discrepancies that I have pointed out.
If you had read the paper carefully you’d have seen that Guthrie and Napier extended the Virgo cluster study to many more of the “hundreds of thousands of measured speeds” (Measured with redshifts not rulers, and so not measured speeds at all) and still got the quantisation after accounting for the solar motion you failed to spot or understand.
As far as I can see, the only numerical discrepancy you have pointed out that may be of real contention is your ‘eyeballing’ of the graph as having an average around 17 when according to your estimate it should be around eleven. I’ll take a look at that and await a reply form Guthrie or Napier.