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.
Sunspot Number and Area are relevant. We cannot know where the Sun is going if we don’t know where it has been .
tallbloke (23:59:00) :
Anyway, I’m tired of putting up with the constant stream of insults I get in return for trying to help uncloud your understanding
Well, that’s one way of evading the issues, but perhaps it is good for you to call it quits, so we can get back to science.
tallbloke (23:59:00) :
You already proved to yourself that the differences between 48 redshifts added up to eleventy hundred results so no more of this nonsense please.
Except that their Figure 2 adds up to much more than 1100. What was my point: that their analysis is flawed, but I’ll accept that you can’t explain how, and let the matter rest.
rbateman (00:02:47) :
Max in 2014, September?
If SC24 looks anything like SC14 which it may well:
http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl14.html
Then the max seems to equally hard to pin down as the min.
rbateman (00:09:55) :
Sunspot Number and Area are relevant. We cannot know where the Sun is going if we don’t know where it has been
That’s why we continue to count.
I estimated that 1026 would live a bit longer, but it spent most of its life on the backside, so was spent when we got to see it.
Correcting the old values, rather than the new is not a question of science, but of practicality: there are many operational programs [e.g. by the USAF] that use the sunspot number as input, and they would suffer by a correction, so we correct the old.
Leif Svalgaard (00:33:50) :
tallbloke (23:59:00) :
You already proved to yourself that the differences between 48 redshifts added up to eleventy hundred results so no more of this nonsense please.
Except that their Figure 2 adds up to much more than 1100. [Which] was my point
No, your point was that spreading 48 results between 100 bins would leave many bins with a zero quantity. Which was completely and utterly wrong, and after I straightened you out on the matter, you then came up with your latest.
If you revise sunspot history as loosely as you revise the history of your own argumentation, don’t be surprised if we eye it cautiously.
tallbloke (03:02:10) :
“Except that their Figure 2 adds up to much more than 1100.”
No, your point was that spreading 48 results between 100 bins would leave many bins with a zero quantity.
The paper computed a difference between the measured speed and the Galactic one. There are 48 such differences, so there should have been 48 results and therefore many zero bins. You interpreted the paper to say that it meant the differences between all pairs of galaxies. There are 1128 of those, yet Figure 2 shows many more pairs. And you have no explanation for this discrepancy. So, your assumption of pair-wise differences is wrong. Apart from the fact that in order to show quantization of redshifts, computing the pair-wise differences is nonsense.
As I said “their analysis is flawed, but I’ll accept that you can’t explain how”
Leif Svalgaard (00:44:26) :
If SC24 looks anything like SC14 which it may well:
It doesn’t, not yet anyway.
Correcting the old values, rather than the new is not a question of science, but of practicality: there are many operational programs [e.g. by the USAF] that use the sunspot number as input, and they would suffer by a correction, so we correct the old.
They are using a number that will and has changed in nature over time. That’s not a comforting thought, building on a base of shifting sand. Surely they have taken the time to assess alternative means.
rbateman (07:43:19) :
“If SC24 looks anything like SC14 which it may well”
It doesn’t, not yet anyway.
It was to illustrate that the concept of a sharp maximum is not valid.
They are using a number that will and has changed in nature over time. That’s not a comforting thought, building on a base of shifting sand. Surely they have taken the time to assess alternative means.
They are just relying the number to stay reasonable over the short term and count on us to ensure this, the best we can.
Here is a link that explains some of that thinking [especially section 2]
rbateman (07:43:19) :
Here is a link that explains some of that thinking [especially section 2]
http://www.aavso.org/publications/ejaavso/v31n1/48.pdf
Leif Svalgaard (05:45:01) :
As I said “their analysis is flawed, but I’ll accept that you can’t explain how”
You are the one who thinks it’s flawed, so you should explain how.
They use a statistical analysis technique which has plenty of precedent, according to their paper, and go to some length to explain what they have and haven’t done with it. I’m not a statistician and I am not able to replicate what they did. Their paper passed review and was published, so I expect the reviewers would think that your analysis of their analysis (such as it is; an eyeballing estimate) is flawed.
In any case, they are not the only people who have repeated Tiffts experiment with various other data, and they all agree the quantisation effect is there. That this is swept under the carpet and ignored by the astronomical establishment is hardly surprising, since accepting it would mean the end of the Big Bang theory.
Basically, redshift can be interpreted in a number of ways, and is not proven to be caused by the velocities associated with a hypothetical universal expansion. I’ll leave it as an open question for people who don’t have closed minds.
I read it. Take all available images, measure the areas of the spots, and compute the Rz according to where it stands today. Your record will then be homogenous, and so will future records. You might then be able to dig up more drawings and info from Paris Observatory where Picard and followers very accurately timed transits and extend (though with gaps) the known Rz back to the Maunder.
If you go back and arbitrarily raise the count based on proxies, you leave open the prospect of someone coming along later with evidence of proxy error, proxy relationship change or contamination, and the whole thing is thrown into diarray once again.
You need to think about what happens down the road.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
tallbloke (12:01:22) :
You are the one who thinks it’s flawed, so you should explain how.
Which I did in detail.
In any case, they are not the only people who have repeated Tiffts experiment with various other data, and they all agree the quantisation effect is there.
The general consensus among people that have looked for this is that there is no effect.
Basically, redshift can be interpreted in a number of ways
No, it cannot. There are two ways and both are there: Doppler velocities and Expansion of Space [as explained by General Relativity]. For close galaxies, their individual motions within the group they belong to give rise to a Doppler shift, that is limited in size, otherwise the group would not retain its member. If you want to argue [against modern data and analysis] that those shifts are quantized, go ahead, as those shift are minute [z=0.00024] compared to the shifts that come from expansion of space [z=8 from galaxies and z=1100 from the CMB]. Those high redshifts are not due to motion at all. The galaxies are basically motionless in space.
I’ll leave it as an open question for people who don’t have closed minds.
As Al Gore says: “if you don’t know anything, everything is possible”
rbateman (12:14:04) :
If you go back and arbitrarily raise the count based on proxies
There is no arbitrariness here. The use of the Earth as a measuring device is no different from using an amp-meter, where you interpret the proxy that is the angle of the needle from its resting position as a measure of the current. In both cases, a careful calibration is needed. And the calibration will not change [significantly] over time if done carefully the first time.
Leif Svalgaard (12:35:59) :
The use of the Earth as a measuring device is no different from using an amp-meter… And the calibration will not change [significantly] over time if done carefully the first time.
Unless some planet wanders by with a magnet in its pocket.
Leif Svalgaard (12:31:41) :
tallbloke (12:01:22) :
Basically, redshift can be interpreted in a number of ways
No, it cannot.
Yes it can.
One example
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html
rbateman (12:14:04) :
Agree, why would you use a proxy when you have the real thing….the spot itself.
Geoff Sharp (15:17:37) :
The image is the record of the occurence.
The proxy is the effect of the occurence through smoked glass.
The count is an arbitration of the occurence.
Man bites dog.
tallbloke (15:00:30) :
Basically, redshift can be interpreted in a number of ways
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html
For each of the two correct ways of looking at the redshift there are an unlimited number of pseudo-scientific ‘explanations’ that as the author stresses: “differ from the current approach of modern physics”. If I were you, I would pay more attention to what is known that to this rambling nonsense.
[REPLY – Please, people, nothing more to do with evolution. Not many topics are banned here, but that is one of them. ~ Evan]
Geoff Sharp (15:17:37) :
Agree, why would you use a proxy when you have the real thing….the spot itself.
rbateman (16:05:09) :
The image is the record of the occurrence.
We don’t have the spot. We observe the spot and different observations using different telescopes and different definitions of what a ‘spot’ is or when it should be counted, so the ‘spot count’ depends on the observer and also on the properties of the spots themselves. The effect of the spot on the Earth does not have that observer bias. All observers at any time observe the same diurnal variation of the geomagnetic field, so this observation can be used to cross calibrate their discordant ‘spot counts’ to a common scale. This is the case for both spot count and area measured. Rudolf Wolf knew this very well and used this to great effect.
Leif Svalgaard (17:00:36) :
We have the integration of the sun captured on plate, film and ccd.
When you are standing in front of that solar table you are looking at a projected image.
Plate, film, ccd or eye take the information from the image.
Plate, film and ccd record the image.
I think it would benefit you greatly to do some measuring.
Then go pay Debrecen a visit.
rbateman (17:36:27) :
I think it would benefit you greatly to do some measuring.
Then go pay Debrecen a visit.
I’m fully aware of their work and of measuring in general. But it doesn’t do me any good for getting the historical sunspot number or area time series in a reasonable shape. Even Arlt’s digitization of Staudacher’s drawings still leaves us with an uncalibrated series that we have to join the RGO data via an unknown calibration. http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspot%20Number%20Data%201775-1802.png shows [green dots] the uncalibrated sunspot areas just fitted to be halfway between Wolf and Schatten. I know of only two ways to figure out what the calibration constant is: (1) the geomagnetic variation and (2) the cosmic ray proxies, and the latter is for the moment much too uncertain to be useful.
None of the ‘measurement’ issues are relevant, because it is the quality of the original drawings that determines the resulting measures.
You are hopelessly stuck on drawings as the only form of record.
Debrecen has calibrated thier work to RGO.
What do you think Geoff and I have been doing all this time, pulling straws out of thin air?
Measurements and images are more than just relevant, they are the Aces in the deck.
It doesn’t matter how many green dots you put on a graph, the light that left the Sun and hit the carefully prepared medium is as close to the real deal as one can get.
A drawing is an artists conception of reality.
rbateman (18:26:56) :
You are hopelessly stuck on drawings as the only form of record.
Whatever other forms you may think are there, do nothing for the calibration of Staudacher’s drawings.
rbateman (18:26:56) :
You are hopelessly stuck on drawings as the only form of record.
Debrecen has calibrated thier work to RGO.
What do you think Geoff and I have been doing all this time, pulling straws out of thin air?
Measurements and images are more than just relevant, they are the Aces in the deck.
It doesn’t matter how many green dots you put on a graph, the light that left the Sun and hit the carefully prepared medium is as close to the real deal as one can get.
A drawing is an artists conception of reality.
To make it crystal clear: none of the platitudes you dish out here have ANY relevance to the calibration of Staudacher’s drawings or W, De La Rue’s photographs from the 1850s. If you think so, then explain how, and be specific.
To be specific, Leif, I did not mention Staudacher, I mentioned Picard and La Hire, who calibrated thier drawing by transit. I mentioned Greenwich who ran a system of imaging and projections to painstakingly measure for the purpose of taking the data aquisition out of the pencil & paper age and into the photographic revolution.
As crystal clear as mud: You don’t know how to calibrate technology from 150 years ago?
Let me drop you a clue:
You can ask someone today to reproduce the camera’s of 150 years ago, but you cannot have asked La Rue to build a ccd imager at the time, and be successful.
Platitude?
You can beat the SSN record into proxied mush for all it’s worth, but it won’t do anything to prevent the recurrence of the problems that have repeatedly plagued it..