New WUWT Solar Images and Data Page

Geoff Sharp says:
January 22, 2011 at 11:34 pm
The NOAA “adjusted” value will be useful when watching the monthly variation with the SIDC value.
The raw value does not seem useful at all and just clutters up the graph.

Geoff Sharp says:
January 23, 2011 at 12:37 am
Its not up to me to add confusion by doing my own adjustment to the NOAA values
You are adding confusion by showing such a large difference between NOAA and SIDC. This has in the past sometimes been interpreted as sign of something fishy going on. No confusion will arise if you state that for comparison reasons, the two counts have been brought to the same scale. Every reasonable person would do this. The US temperatures are officially published in F, the rest of the world in C. I have never seen them plotted on the same graph and don’t think it would reasonable to do so.

Geoff Sharp says:
January 23, 2011 at 12:55 am
If we follow your logic Leif
Please do.
You also show F10.7 clearly scaled to match the SSN [can’t tell which one]. Try to plot F10.7 and SSN using the same scaling, but for twenty years ago:
http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20and%20SSN%202.png

vukcevic says:
January 23, 2011 at 1:45 am
Axial is not local. Axial definition : located on, around , or in the direction of an axis.
Recent observations indicate that magnetic field lines of magnetic clouds do remain connected to the Sun [Larson et al., 1997].
Of course, that idea goes back 40 years.
Now, think about it: In your distorted view, the loop starts at the surface of the Sun goes out way past the planets and returns to the Sun. This is a net current, you say, so some process at the Sun is pumping electrons [or do you think that should be the much heavier protons] into the loop for many weeks or months [the loop lives that long], although the CME only last a few hours, the currents goes on and on. The particles travel away from the Sun along the loop [while the solar wind and indeed the loop expand radially] and bend around at great distances [the loop has been wound around the sun several times by now] in order to return to the sun along the loop.
Geoff Sharp says:
January 23, 2011 at 1:46 am
NOAA do not discount therefore they move away from the past.
Wolf did not discount. We are just returning to Wolf’s way.
Very interesting news from Cortesi, is the stopping down of 150mm to 80mm used by all observers on all days at Locarno?
The piece of cardboard has been in there for decades.
This has not been mentioned in their yearly reports. The image is definitely clearer at reduced aperture or magnification but I would not say you can see more.
I’ll defer to Sergio.

Polar Field Strength here …
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
Anthony
I maintain an up to date (year 2000 onwards, so higher resolution, more details) Polar Field Strength graph derived from the WSO data:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 23, 2011 at 2:54 am
……………
Feedback: It may be as simple as this: if magnetic cloud hits large magnetosphere energy is taken out of it ( it contains one billion Amps, 10^24 -10^30 Joules; the Earth’s take is usually 650,000A or 10^14 Joules http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/203795main_FluxPower_400.jpg )
and shuts down magnetic connection sooner than if it didn’t hit anything, since:
Recent observations indicate that magnetic field lines of magnetic clouds do remain connected to the Sun [Larson et al., 1997].
http://wwwppd.nrl.navy.mil/prediction/storms.html
….that the electrical current and the magnetic field are parallel and proportional in strength everywhere within its volume.
http://www.ann-geophys.net/24/215/2006/angeo-24-215-2006.pdf
Nasa shows loop engulfs major magnetospheres, and goes all the way to heliopause:

heavier particles move forward
http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/view_picture.asp?id=910
(orange shading) but ‘the electrical current and the magnetic field are parallel and proportional in strength everywhere within its volume’ ‘of magnetic clouds do remain connected to the Sun’ as quoted above.

Geoff Sharp says:
January 23, 2011 at 3:49 am
Simple answer which you well know, Wolf had a threshold. Wolfer changed the rules and counted every speck and discounted by 0.6 to align with Wolf. Do you think we are stupid?
You make a good impression of one.
Wolfer changed the rules for the better. The Wolfer way is better than the undefined and not-reproducible threshold [every serious observer agree on this]. The way to deal with the changed rules is to multiply all numbers [1610-2011] by 1.67, then multiply [again] all numbers before ~1947 by 1.20. The resulting series should then be compatible with NOAA’s and we can dispense with the 0.6 nonsense, and there will be no confusion anymore. Friedli has for many years observed with the 40mm handheld telescope and the specks and small pores are simply not visible with that, so there is an automatic threshold build-in simply because of the smaller scope. He quotes a k-factor of 1 for the scope, which should bring him right on the Wolf scale.
Very interesting news from Cortesi, is the stopping down of 150mm to 80mm used by all observers on all days at Locarno?
The piece of cardboard has been in there for decades.
We might need some proof of this. But if so it will only remove the aperture discussion…show us your data.
The proof is what Cortesi [through me] tells you. We don’t care what you think about this, but that is the way it is and has always been. [many other observers do the same for a very good reason – it improves the contrast].
Geoff Sharp says:
January 23, 2011 at 3:56 am
I am still awaiting your response why you will not adjust your own graphs that use the NOAA unadjusted values. Time to man up again.
I do. They show the NOAA unadjusted, as should be at the level of the final, historical, correct, useful sunspot number series for everybody to use.
vukcevic says:
January 23, 2011 at 4:21 am
Feedback: It may be as simple as this: if magnetic cloud hits large magnetosphere energy is taken out of it ( it contains one billion Amps, 10^24 -10^30 Joules; the Earth’s take is usually 650,000A or 10^14 Joules
Try to calculate the total power and and you will see that it is much bigger. Furthermore dissipating power that far away from the sun has no ‘back effect’. The wind is 11 times supersonic.