|
|
Post by acidohm on Mar 30, 2024 6:56:31 GMT
Will it, won't it??? Sun might go spotless in 2 days or so...  |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 31, 2024 12:14:34 GMT
Will it, won't it??? Sun might go spotless in 2 days or so...
When was the last time this happened mid-cycle? I could go looking. But thought I'd ask first. |
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Mar 31, 2024 12:58:39 GMT
Will it, won't it??? Sun might go spotless in 2 days or so...
When was the last time this happened mid-cycle? I could go looking. But thought I'd ask first. 2014. Hold that thought tho as a tiny spot emerged on Eastern limb, still low count but no 0 for now. |
|
|
|
Post by tyrbiter on Mar 31, 2024 19:21:54 GMT
The sun doesn't like to be at all predictable ;-)
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 31, 2024 19:26:42 GMT
The sun doesn't like to be at all predictable ;-) It's a SHE for sure.  |
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Apr 1, 2024 11:28:42 GMT
Solen monthly update done. They've marked NH peak, I don't think we're far off them designating a cycle peak for sometime last July.  |
|
|
|
Post by code on Apr 1, 2024 18:41:34 GMT
The sun doesn't like to be at all predictable ;-) Welcome <style></style> |
|
|
|
Post by tyrbiter on Apr 8, 2024 16:00:24 GMT
What with the tantalising prospect of an unexpected mid-cycle spotless sun, it's been noticeable that the raw sunspot numbers reported seem to be a bit off more often than they should.
For instance, yesterday the source of the data provided by N0NBH showed a sudden change from 111 to 79, which is a suspicious-looking 33 increment, or 3 single spot groups, solen however did not.
Is someone trying to game the system, or make things look spottier than they really are?
Inquiring minds are wondering.
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Apr 8, 2024 16:56:25 GMT
What with the tantalising prospect of an unexpected mid-cycle spotless sun, it's been noticeable that the raw sunspot numbers reported seem to be a bit off more often than they should. For instance, yesterday the source of the data provided by N0NBH showed a sudden change from 111 to 79, which is a suspicious-looking 33 increment, or 3 single spot groups, solen however did not.
Is someone trying to game the system, or make things look spottier than they really are? Inquiring minds are wondering.
Don't know. But it would seem REALLY hard to blame THAT on CO2 or Trump. So why bother? Let the Woke stampede begin.   |
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Apr 8, 2024 18:43:37 GMT
What with the tantalising prospect of an unexpected mid-cycle spotless sun, it's been noticeable that the raw sunspot numbers reported seem to be a bit off more often than they should.
For instance, yesterday the source of the data provided by N0NBH showed a sudden change from 111 to 79, which is a suspicious-looking 33 increment, or 3 single spot groups, solen however did not.
Is someone trying to game the system, or make things look spottier than they really are?
Inquiring minds are wondering.
You're right TyrB, a sunspot gives a sunspot no. Of 11. I think variations may occur as a spot or two appear later in day, depending on what time zone you're in. Wolf and then Wolfe started sunspot counting from "cycle 1" in Europe, but imagine comparing daily numbers with someone in Australia, they'd certainly be variation in totals. Sunspot numbers are slightly subjective as we're also only counting spots earthside so farside are discounted, large spots right on the horizon also appear to have a smaller surface area until rotating to full view. I guess what in saying is...don't get too tied up in the nuances as there's no definitive answer, however consistency from a single source is important. Regarding spotlessness, think that's off the cards for now, AR3615 was a huge spot that gave us some large CME not long ago and is due to return after the weekend... |
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Apr 8, 2024 20:08:30 GMT
clearly a faulty metric but given the out timers were constrained to one side views for the benefit of long records this should remain.
The ability to distort this metric remains with better view location and equipment.
the magnetics etc will take over as we go along.
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Apr 8, 2024 21:19:34 GMT
clearly a faulty metric but given the out timers were constrained to one side views for the benefit of long records this should remain. The ability to distort this metric remains with better view location and equipment. the magnetics etc will take over as we go along. The Geomagnetic AP Index goes back to 1844 and it tracks sunspots very well. And we are back to the 1880s-90s.
 |
|
|
|
Post by ratty on Apr 8, 2024 21:53:18 GMT
clearly a faulty metric but given the out timers were constrained to one side views for the benefit of long records this should remain. The ability to distort this metric remains with better view location and equipment. the magnetics etc will take over as we go along. The Geomagnetic AP Index goes back to 1844 and it tracks sunspots very well. And we are back to the 1880s-90s.
Missouri, I hope you have all your data protected by off-site storage and bequeathed to someone responsible in your will. Tip: Have Michael Mann check the data for accuracy. |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Apr 8, 2024 23:01:08 GMT
I have already written the letter.
Dear Dr Mann I am sending you some databases that you may find interesting. Or not ... as they don't seem to support your primary thesis that human CO2 emissions are the primary culprit for recent global warming. However, as a "good" scientist, I have at least some faith that you will give them a dispassionate evaluation, as all good scientists will. I look forward to your response.
With all due professional regards. Missouriboy.
|
|
|
|
Post by ratty on Apr 8, 2024 23:03:57 GMT
I have already written the letter. Dear Dr Mann I am sending you some databases that you may find interesting. Or not ... as they don't seem to support your primary thesis that human CO2 emissions are the primary culprit for recent global warming. However, as a "good" scientist, I have at least some faith that you will give them a dispassionate evaluation, as all good scientists will. I look forward to your response.
With all due professional regards. Missouriboy.
Can't wait to hear his response ...... |
|
