Let’s hope he does get out of the wrong side of the bed.
The current sunspot count and 10.7 cm radio flux have increased in the latest NOAA SWPC graphs, shown below. but curiously, the Ap magnetic index remains low.
Current solar status:
Geomagnetic conditions:
From Spaceweather.com : X-FLARE: March 9th ended with a powerful solar flare. Earth-orbiting satellites detected an X1.5-class explosion from behemoth sunspot 1166 around 2323 UT. A movie from NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory shows a bright flash of UV radiation plus some material being hurled away from the blast site:
Movie formats: 4 MB gif, 1.2 MB iPad, 0.3 MB iPhone
A first look at coronagraph images from NASA’s STEREO-B spacecraft suggests that the explosion did propel a coronal mass ejection (CME) toward Earth. This conclusion is preliminary, however, so check back later for updates.
After four years without any X-flares, the sun has produced two of the powerful blasts in less than one month: Feb. 15th and March 9th. This continues the recent trend of increasing solar activity, and shows that Solar Cycle 24 is heating up. NOAA forecasters estimate a 5% chance of more X-flares during the next 24 hours.
Here’s sunspot group 1166 visible in this SDO image:
Here’s the X-ray flux, the flare was just barely and x-class:
Here’s the latest monthly data from NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC):
Note that the Ap Index did not show similar gains.
As always, complete solar coverage at WUWT’s solar reference page
vukcevic says:
March 11, 2011 at 12:16 am
Latest geomagnetic storm is still going on 23 hours after it started.
Japan earthquake just a coincidence?
No, it’s not simple coincidence. Anything that put pressure against rock and then releases it assures that the cracks inflicted will result in movement. What is unclear is the actual mechanism by which tectonics are affected. Likewise, the rift that just opened in the Hawaiian volcano is not simple coincidence. These occurences are to be expected when solar activity changes state, and this particular episode is par for the course.
Call it a risk factor enhancement.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 10, 2011 at 5:37 pm
…..I am the authority on polar fields, if you need one.
That is not disputed and I will gladly acknowledge it.
However, even if rickety measurements in early 1960’s were taken as good, that does not mean that 50 years of the subsequent data, which correlates well with their theoretical conclusions:
http://ihy2007.org/WHI/WHIDMAW_POSTERS/WHIVSWSM/MM_TSI_Wang_ApJ_2005.pdf
…as well as with similar study by Solanki et al from Max Plank:
( http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/full/2004/42/aa1024/aa1024.right.html) …should be ignored.
It would be also unwise to reject my results, since they are in very close agreement with both studies, and in the highest correlation (R^2 = 0.93) with actual measurements since the time the continuous stream of data is available:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC17.htm .
vukcevic says:
March 11, 2011 at 12:18 am
Latest polar field
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm
~
Happy Friday
One more southern hemispheric “peculuiarity.”
Hydrogen collumn density distribution within the heliiosphere.
Check out the latitude distribution thru the heliosphere from upwind to downwind.
Squares in image are detections and diamonds and + are nondetection.
Page 24
Constraints on the Structure of the Heliospheric
Interface Based on Lyα Absorption Spectra
Brian E. Wood · Vladislav V. Izmodenov ·
Yury G. Malama
http://gasdyn-ipm.ipmnet.ru/~izmod/Papers/2009/Wood_Izmodenov_Malama_2009SpaceSciRev.pdf
Maybe Dr. S can .. tell us why.. a higher concentration of interstellar Hydrogen streaming through the southern heliosphere at this time. Is “part of the distribution” somehow governed by the location n/s of the hydrogen wall?
Here is Magnetosphere Activity for March 10th, 2011, from the National Institute of Information and Communications Technology:
Here’s the link to the high res downloadable avi file:
http://www3.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/movie/2011/test_6.20110310.avi
Leif Svalgaard says: March 11, 2011 at 5:25 am
Links would be fine.
Done.
Why is the Noaa sunspot number (137) so much higher than the sunspot number given in the second graph (the sunspot number graph)?
There is another strong geomagnetic disturbance under way:
http://flux.phys.uit.no/cgi-bin/plotgeodata.cgi?Last24&site=tro2a&
Carla says:
March 11, 2011 at 6:59 am
Is “part of the distribution” somehow governed by the location n/s of the hydrogen wall?
There are only so few ‘sight lines’ that you cannot say much. What is clear is the the detections are simply governed by the hydrogen wall. However, none of this has any influence on the inner solar system.
David says:
March 11, 2011 at 9:22 am
Why is the Noaa sunspot number (137) so much higher than the sunspot number given in the second graph (the sunspot number graph)?
Because the International Sunspot Number by convention is only 60% of the actually ‘observed’ NOAA sunspot number.
Another major typo.
I said “I’ve learned enough to read the graphs under the widgets.” when the truth is I’ve NOT YET learned enough to read the graphs under the widgets.
vukcevic says:
March 11, 2011 at 6:02 am
It would be also unwise to reject my results, since they are in very close agreement with both studies, and in the highest correlation (R^2 = 0.93) with actual measurements since the time the continuous stream of data is available:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC17.htm .
You show two versions of your formula. They are different, and incomplete. If I add some missing parentheses [in red] to the one you have been pushing the longest time, I do not get at all anything that looks like your curve. This I have remarked on before. Time to be less sloppy and tell us what the ‘correct’ formula is. Here is what I [or rather Excel] get:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Polar-Fields-12.png\
Here is Magnetosphere Activity for March 11th, 2011, from the National Institute of Information and Communications Technology:
Here’s the link to the high res downloadable avi file:
http://www3.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/movie/2011/test_6.20110311.avi
Also, I added this animation;
http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/substorm.gif
to the WUWT Geomagnetic Reference Page:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/geomagnetism/
Just The Facts says: March 11, 2011 at 10:05 pm
“Also, I added this animation;
http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/substorm.gif”
And removed immediately thereafter, when I realized that it was just a simulation loop, versus a real-time feed. Eventually I hope that NICT will offer such a real-time magnetosphere animation gif, but in the short-term, I just hope that they are all ok.
vukcevic says:
March 11, 2011 at 6:02 am
It would be also unwise to reject my results
If I change the -1940.5-3 in your formula by ‘-1947.5’ I get something that matches your plot. Then I can extend your plot to 1715 [it should be valid at all times – even during the Maunder Minimum, hmmm]. To compare with Wang et al. one can plot half and -half of your ‘polar field’ to apportion the dipole moment evenly between North and South, and finally overlay the result on Wang et al.’s [your authority]. The result is
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-5.png
As you can see, the formula breaks down around 1900 and around 1800, and gives the wrong sign between 1800 and 1900. So, you can see, it fails spectacularly.
Tallbloke said: “I’m going to keep a close eye on solar windspeeds as we approach Jupiter perigree on the 19th.”
He meant perihelion of course, not perigree nor perigee. Regarding perihelion, http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html notes that strange things happen around Jovian perihelion. For example, at the last perihelion, from May 10-12 the solar wind all but disappeared, and sunspots increased before perihelion and then decreased after it.
Of course, that may all be a coincidence. If the same occurs again will that be a coincidence? Anyway, I understand why Tallbloke will be keeping an eye on it.
Rich.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 11, 2011 at 11:13 pm
…………….
This is the Excel entry in the last cell (for 7th February 2011):
= -152*(COS(2*PI()*(K1626-1943.5)/19.859)+COS(PI()/3+2*PI()*(K1626-1943.5)/23.724))
K is column for dates, and the current cell (K1626) reads 2011.1174
There are 2 x 4 parentheses excluding pi().
The rest you can do yourself.
No polarity switch is not a bother, since you can consider absolute (unsigned) values.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 11, 2011 at 11:13 pm
…………….
I like your second graph, an excellent match to Y.-M. Wang, J. L. Lean, and N. R. Sheeley, Jr.
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-5.png
Considering they work for Space Research, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington (the centre of known Universe), this being their second paper on the subject, and probably paid in hundreds of thousands of US$, and then here is me, hardly literate monenegrien ‘donkey riding, illicit brandy distilling, rock tossing burly peasant’, coming up with an even better match to the actual records (since 1967) than your the above aforementioned esteemed colleagues, and you bother about tiny – sign in 1900 (is gets ok on the next switch).
And again this is only a minor ornament in my pandora’s box of goodies, the NAP is the one to look for.
vukcevic says:
March 12, 2011 at 3:44 am
This is the Excel entry in the last cell (for 7th February 2011):
= -152*(COS(2*PI()*(K1626-1943.5)/19.859)+COS(PI()/3+2*PI()*(K1626-1943.5)/23.724))
The formulae on your graphs both have a phase offset of 2*PI()/3 instead of what you now say PI()/3. It would be good if your graphs would show the correct formula. The high correlation comes about because you plot the signed quantity. The regain some credibility, perhaps you should update your graphs with the correct formula. Also calculate the correlation using the absolute values instead.
No polarity switch is not a bother, since you can consider absolute (unsigned) values.
Getting the sign correct should be a bother to you. Especially since it is the sign that is important for the correlation coefficient. Redo your plots and calculation without the sign and show us.
vukcevic says:
March 12, 2011 at 4:16 am
here is me, hardly literate monenegrien
It shows.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 12, 2011 at 6:26 am
On my illicit montenegrien brandy I have a label ‘If you don’t like it , don’t buy it’. Same for the formula.
vukcevic says:
March 12, 2011 at 9:59 am
On my illicit montenegrien brandy I have a label ‘If you don’t like it , don’t buy it’. Same for the formula.
some things are not worth buying. At least you should correct the errors I have pointed out. People that download it for free get what they pay for, don’t they…
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 12, 2011 at 6:32 pm
…..
There was an error on the sunspot one (corrected), polar fields was OK, unless you were looking at an old one. Free samples are here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
Since you are in wine growing region, if you like to set up your own private brandy facility, I can advise. It takes 3 weeks from fresh grape to natural, clear, non-adulterated brandy. Very healthy non-addictive if consumed in small quantities before breakfast; good for colds, infections, rheumatic pain (applied externally) etc. Stuff made from corn, potatoes and similar is poor man’s cheep, liver damaging addictive substitute.
vukcevic says:
March 13, 2011 at 12:25 am
There was an error on the sunspot one (corrected), polar fields was OK, unless you were looking at an old one
Now, that you have admitted that the sign is wrong, one can recalculate the correlation using absolute values. The resulting R-squared is then only 0.51, nothing to write home about, given the very high autocorrelation of the data. Here is what you should do: carefully measure on the Wang et al. graph, what the values are for the polar fields since 1715, then correlate with what your corrected formula says. This will show you how poor the correlation is, and will, of course, be the reason that you will not do what I suggest. Perhaps better drown the sorrow with some of that home brew brandy.
Your KGB methods do not work. You don’t calculate correlations for rectified signals. Go back and learn the basics of harmonic oscillations.
Correct way of doing correlation is by taking into account the sign of a periodic function as shown here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
Doswidaniya tovarich Lavrentiy Pavlovich
vukcevic says:
March 13, 2011 at 11:56 am
Correct way of doing correlation is by taking into account the sign of a periodic function as shown here
Then correlate Wang et al. and your formula including the sign.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 13, 2011 at 7:17 pm
Then correlate Wang et al. and your formula including the sign.
Wang et al is only a model, close to reality, but still a model.
Only correlation that counts is one with the actual measured data, and that one is not only perfect, but highest for any in the field of the solar science.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
No amount of ‘fiddling’ you can think of would overturn 50+ years of data.
Perhaps next you may suggest correlation with the Mann’s hockey stick.