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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Vuk
You missed Y = + – A [ Cos(…. etc)
No I didn’t. +-A will not give you a 22 year average back to 1750.
vukcevic says:
March 18, 2011 at 11:55 am
Perfectly justifiable action you may take to destroy your enemy
Danish proverb: “thief thinks everybody steals” seems to be applicable to you.
Your formula has failed a long time ago as has been demonstrated abundantly. No need to fight it. Just to remind people from time to time of its failing.
lgl
Polar field formula is a good representation of the data availability period . It is also in a good agreement with the Wang and Solanki models, going back 2-3 cycles prior to the data period. It is observance from the last solar max to next, when level of activity may fall drastically, which may give us clear indication of what the polar fields are about. The idea of 1/1000 chance of the sunspot cycle magnetism accumulating in the polar regions, when compared to the actual measurements relative regularity of rise and fall in the PF, does not stand scrutiny as probability is understood in any other brunch of science. I am happy just to wait and see how it fares against forthcoming reversal, for time being appears to be on the track:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm
A year or two ago Dr.S was ridiculing the idea that it could predict the reversal within a year or so, the length of time a reversal takes. Time will tell if he was right or wrong.
I certainly do not hide intention of the PF formula: its intention is to sabotage and eventually destroy dogma of the ‘solar science religion’ that the sun in an isolated entity from the rest of the planets, that it has an internal magnetic clock running at an 11 year tick, but the same solar science is unable to agree about, let alone convincingly explain the mechanism driving it.
My formula can be only beaten by the data, and that is not happening! No data file or a link to existence of such, for data prior to 1965 was ever produced despite all claims to the contrary.
No data, no beef, no contest!
vukcevic says:
March 18, 2011 at 2:39 pm
My formula can be only beaten by the data
It has been beaten many times. The polar fields in 1961-1965 were weak as both Mt Wilson and Crimea shows. The sign is wrong in the 19th century. The formula predicts always the same length of the solar cycle [except when it breaks down every century]. That you ignore this is typical of a non-scientist’s infatuation with his own brilliance.
formula can be only beaten by the data .
Where’s the beef ?
No data, no contest !
vukcevic says:
March 19, 2011 at 1:13 am
No data, no contest !
Running away from the data is bad science, but typical pseudo-science.
According to your formula the dipole moment in 1961 should have been -262 uT and stronger than in 1976-77. Yet data shows that there was no measurable South polar field and only a faint North polar field [below 1 G], e.g.
http://www.leif.org/research/MWO-1961.png
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-7.png
So, there you have it. The polar fields before SC20 didn’t build up to a strong field [Severny couldn’t even measure it although the same instrument measured the fields in 1976 quite well], hence the weak cycle that followed. Getting the sign wrong in the 19th century is another fatal blow: http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-6.png
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-5.png
Hey Doc
a) that’s no polar field data, that’s a sketch (of god knows what). This is an example of good and valid data: http://wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html
b) You misinterpreted the formula, there is also + – sign, if you whish to venture in the area where there is no data.
No court of law would accept such evidence.
No data, hence accusation of failure of the formula to perform its function is NOT sustained.
Case dismissed !
vukcevic says:
March 19, 2011 at 9:34 am
a) that’s no polar field data, that’s a sketch (of god knows what).
That is a Mt Wilson magnetogram
http://www.leif.org/research/MWO-1961.png
b) You misinterpreted the formula, there is also + – sign, if you whish to venture in the area where there is no data.
This is just a [new] device to plaster over the failing of the formula, and you are wrong about the ‘no data’. We know quite well the polarity of the polar fields in the 19th century.
As you say about your antics: “No court of law would accept such evidence”
You forget yhat you are the plaintiff, the person who initiated a complaint, hence it is up to you to prove your claim beyond reasonable doubt. Your evidence is incomplete, based on assumptions, spurious claims and hear say, therefore unacceptable.
Your clam is clear case of deformation.
Case dismissed.
vukcevic says:
March 20, 2011 at 1:50 am
Your evidence is incomplete, based on assumptions, spurious claims and hear say, therefore unacceptable.
A measure of the the polar field strength is the bending of high latitude polar plumes. A higher polar field strength will bend the high latitude plumes more towards the solar equator. The bending of the polar plumes can be obtained by taking an average of the angle just above the photosphere at 60 degree latitude in the four quadrants seen at solar eclipses. In Figure 1b of http://www.leif.org/research/Using%20Dynamo%20Theory%20to%20Predict%20Solar%20Cycle%2021.pdf you can see that the bending angle in 1964 was 20 degrees while in 1954 it was 40 degrees. Hence the polar fields in 1964 were much weaker than in 1954, contrary to your formula.
Another estimate of the polar field strength is the degree of warping of the heliospheric current sheet. In Figure 1c you can see that the warping was much stronger in 1954 than in 1964, meaning that the polar fields were much weaker in 1964 than in 1954.
You can contrast this presentation of data to your rantings.
Looks to me you are short of credible evidence.
I only deal with a corroborated sequence of numbers, commonly known as reliable data.
vukcevic says:
March 20, 2011 at 5:38 am
I only deal with a corroborated sequence of numbers, commonly known as reliable data.
One has to deal with the data in whatever format they have. Ignoring data that doesn’t fit is bad science.