Solar and Aurora Activity Chat

[karyo]

9 minutes ago, Yarmy said:

Not quite. There were consecutive (adjusted for the Sun-Earth distance) observations of 64.8, 64.6 and 64.3 on the 9th November last year. 

If you look at the archive date on Spaceweather for that date (actually the next day because they update the day after):

http://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=10&month=11&year=2017

...then you can see they are showing a flux value of 66, but that's because they are using the observed flux rather than the adjusted flux. They ought to be using the latter because the flux is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the Sun to the Earth. (The widget on Solarham makes the same mistake).

 

 

Thanks Yarmy. You are the fountain of solar knowledge.

[JeffC]

40 minutes ago, karyo said:

Thanks Yarmy. You are the fountain of solar knowledge.

indeed, @Yarmy you could almost be described as the guiding star !

 

[SteveB]

6 days blank, 58 for 2018, 60%

Solar flux 66

[SteveB]

7 days blank, 59 for 2018, 60%

Solar flux on the rise @ 67

[SteveB]

8 days blank, 60 for 2018, 60%

Solar flux 67

[karyo]

2 hours ago, SteveB said:

8 days blank, 60 for 2018, 60%

Solar flux 67

Reaching 100 days in June should be realistic.

[SteveB]

45 minutes ago, karyo said:

Reaching 100 days in June should be realistic.

You should think, I would like to see a continuous run of blank days that stretch well into double figures as well!

[karyo]

2 minutes ago, SteveB said:

You should think, I would like to see a continuous run of blank days that stretch well into double figures as well!

Hopefully we will get that in 2 days.

[Katrine Basso]

I could not get on the Spaceweather website as I got a message: Forbidden you don't have permission to access / on this server.  I have never had any problems accessing the website before.

[drgl]

Looks like it's down as I get the same message. It was working this morning though!

[Chris.R]

 Remove any slashes at the end of the URL. 

[drgl]

It's not that, the site is down.

[Chris.R]

 Well it’s working now anyway. 

http://www.spaceweather.com/

[TPStones]

8 hours ago, SteveB said:

You should think, I would like to see a continuous run of blank days that stretch well into double figures as well!

100 days by June seems more than doable by June. At this rate it will be easier counting the days with sunspots. I wonder if we can reach 200 by november.

Edited April 9, 2018 by TPStones
Pressed save before I added any text.

[Crepuscular Ray]

200 days by November is entirely probable.

Do any of the theories about low solar min predict which is more likely out of cold and dry/cool and wet/cold and snowy?

I know that the coldies on here love the idea of low sunspot activity in winter with the extrapolated threat of snow, but fail to understand why you're happy at the thought of low solar activity in spring/summer when that's supposed according to the same theory to produce cloud, clag, gloom, rain, muck, mizzle, drizzle and temperatures far below average.

[SteveB]

9 day's blank, 61 for 2018, 61%

Solar flux 69

[SteveB]

8 hours ago, Crepuscular Ray said:

200 days by November is entirely probable.

Do any of the theories about low solar min predict which is more likely out of cold and dry/cool and wet/cold and snowy?

I know that the coldies on here love the idea of low sunspot activity in winter with the extrapolated threat of snow, but fail to understand why you're happy at the thought of low solar activity in spring/summer when that's supposed according to the same theory to produce cloud, clag, gloom, rain, muck, mizzle, drizzle and temperatures far below average.

We get all that rubbish in Spring & Summer whether it's solar minimum or not.

I'll take my chances and have the sun blank 365 day's of the year if it meant a truly bitter Winter.

[Yarmy]

The new small sunspot that has appeared in the Southern Hemisphere is notable because it has reversed polarity. What does that mean? Well, it could mean it belongs to SC25, or it could just be an anomalous group for SC24. On average, something like 3% of all sunspot groups exhibit reversed polarity.

[karyo]

1 hour ago, Yarmy said:

The new small sunspot that has appeared in the Southern Hemisphere is notable because it has reversed polarity. What does that mean? Well, it could mean it belongs to SC25, or it could just be an anomalous group for SC24. On average, something like 3% of all sunspot groups exhibit reversed polarity.

So if it belongs to SC25 it would mean that we are moving to the next cycle already? I guess that would be no good news if we want a deep minimum or am I getting this wrong? 

[Yarmy]

1 hour ago, karyo said:

So if it belongs to SC25 it would mean that we are moving to the next cycle already? I guess that would be no good news if we want a deep minimum or am I getting this wrong? 

The first reversed polarity sunspot of SC24 arrived in late 2007, yet 2008 and 2009 both had more than 250 spotless days so it doesn't preclude a long, drawn out minimum even if it is an SC25 spot.

 

[karyo]

1 hour ago, Yarmy said:

The first reversed polarity sunspot of SC24 arrived in late 2007, yet 2008 and 2009 both had more than 250 spotless days so it doesn't preclude a long, drawn out minimum even if it is an SC25 spot.

 

Ok, thanks for clarifying.

[TPStones]

7 hours ago, SteveB said:

We get all that rubbish in Spring & Summer whether it's solar minimum or not.

I'll take my chances and have the sun blank 365 day's of the year if it meant a truly bitter Winter.

I just love weather extremes I guess, so if I'm not going to get 3 months of blizzards then I'd settle for a year of solar anomalies on the hope that it's part of a prolonged Dalton/Maunder style minimum. 

 

[SteveB]

In to double figures, 10 day's blank, 62 for 2018, 61%

Solar flux is 69

[karyo]

Good to see that the new sunspot died a death before it got a chance to be counted.

[SteveB]

1 hour ago, karyo said:

Good to see that the new sunspot died a death before it got a chance to be counted.

Yes, it meant we could get into double figures.