Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?
shuggee

Solar and Aurora Activity Chat

Recommended Posts

Interesting the latitude that the spot turned up at (14N)

Would suggest that this is near the end of cycle 24 as it is so near to the equator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest North Sea Snow Convection

http://www.niagara-g..._243204156.html

Interesting prediction contained in this link! No sunspots visible by 2015!

Livingston and Penn have been quite prominent in their predictions for this cycle back some way

Edited by North Sea Snow Convection

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, SIDC tend to have the last word on it, and they have not counted the spot..... yet! http://sidc.oma.be/products/ri_hemispheric/

More from WUWT ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/31/an-odd-day-in-solar-science-its-mostly-a-waiting-game/ )

http://www.niagara-g..._243204156.html

Interesting prediction contained in this link! No sunspots visible by 2015!

Livingston and Penn have been quite prominent in their predictions for this cycle back some way

Good article. Goes some way to explaining why we radio hams are having great difficulty making contact with semi distant signals. Even the year 2004/5 was better than it is now, and that wasn't so great either!Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.niagara-g..._243204156.html

Interesting prediction contained in this link! No sunspots visible by 2015!

Livingston and Penn have been quite prominent in their predictions for this cycle back some way

Interesting stuff from Mr's Livingston and Penn, particularly as their prediction was made back in 2006 and recent developments are verifying their theory, however this website:

http://www.astroengine.com/?p=678

indicates concerns over their relatively small sample size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest North Sea Snow Convection

Interesting stuff from Mr's Livingston and Penn, particularly as their prediction was made back in 2006 and recent developments are verifying their theory, however this website:

http://www.astroengine.com/?p=678

indicates concerns over their relatively small sample size.

That is actually a very good and constructive reply. The blogger appears to have a lot of respect for Livingston and Penns research even though he cites the 15 year sample period as not enough to give high confidence in the research conclusions and predictions.

Interestingly though there is no dismissal of the possibility. A good analysis of the work and a good explanation of their methodology - aside from and irrespective of speculation about the eventual outcome

Edited by North Sea Snow Convection

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure NASA and everybody else has a set criteria for what constitutes a sun spot and what doesn't? Why must there be a conspiracy in everything - it bores me to tears!

I don't think there is a conspiracy however I am sure that as technology has improved then smaller spots can be seen. If these are now counted then the criteria has changed. Will Nasa or anyone else for that matter confirm that the size of sunspot that constitues a sunspot for counting purposes has not changed. Somehow I don't think so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I first read Livingston and Penn's abstract, my initial reaction was that surely the steady drop in umbral magnetism must surely coincide with the downward progression from solar cycle 23's maximum. However, when examining the graph that demonstrates the linear nature in the decrease of umbral magnetism and comparing it with this graph showing the sunspot activity for solar cycle 23:

post-2545-12518282418368_thumb.gif

it seems that the decrease in magnetism started to become apparent around 2001. As such, if the decrease in magnetism was an expected observation that was a corollary of a reducing sunspot number, solar cycle 23 should have had a steady downward trend from this point. However the graph shows that cycle 23 experienced a second peak in late 2001. This may indicate that, at that point, the magnetism had not dropped sufficiently low to affect sunspot numbers.

If Livingston and Penn are correct in their theory, solar cycle 24, which may have been quiet anyway (with a maximum of around 90), may end up with a very low maximum - perhaps as low as between 30 and 50.

As ever, time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.niagara-g..._243204156.html

Interesting prediction contained in this link! No sunspots visible by 2015!

Livingston and Penn have been quite prominent in their predictions for this cycle back some way

Now thats the kind of article I like to read.

The last paragraph really does make sense whether you believe in man made global warming or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted ImageAnother spot trying forming? Same region (the Equator againPosted Image ) SC25 is coming sooner than we think, lol Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i recently asked if coronal eruptions had anylink with sunspots im not arguing with anyone but i think there is but its seem the more agressive the coronal holes are then starts the sunspots.

if its a fluke then how come it happened back a few months ago infact it seems going back sometime this happened.

just saying still intresting reads in here :rofl:

and if cycle 25 is coming sooner than later then surely this means it will be pretty active?.

Edited by badboy657

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest North Sea Snow Convection

I don't think there is a conspiracy however I am sure that as technology has improved then smaller spots can be seen. If these are now counted then the criteria has changed. Will Nasa or anyone else for that matter confirm that the size of sunspot that constitues a sunspot for counting purposes has not changed. Somehow I don't think so

I think that is very fair comment and pitched about right. There is no need for conspiracy theories - there is enough happening to be able to make suggestions without resorting to thosePosted Image

Now thats the kind of article I like to read.

The last paragraph really does make sense whether you believe in man made global warming or not.

Yes it does - and as I suggested before, i think in a rather roundabout way that is reflected in the critiquing counter blogger link that A-M provides

The future remains uncertain with all these feedbacks at play - natural vs man made but there are encouraging signs imo that at least solar activity and associated feedbacks are gaining more respect in terms of the climate debate as a whole

Edited by North Sea Snow Convection

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that is very fair comment and pitched about right. There is no need for conspiracy theories - there is enough happening to be able to make suggestions without resorting to thosePosted Image

Exactly Tamara, only those who seek to to ridicule the "deniers," claim there is a conspiracy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest North Sea Snow Convection

Exactly Tamara, only those who seek to to ridicule the "deniers," claim there is a conspiracy!

It remains a 'long game' in terms of seeing how net effects from all these factors play out. I do honestly think that moderate supporters from both opposite view sides of solar/natural vs man made climate change causes deep down equally believe that - but with the emphasis of the science being so heavily and unhealthily weighted towards the AGW element we have already moved some way from say 2006 when the likes of Livingston and Penn first made their predictions. The present position would have been dismissed then, let alone talk of Maunder mins etc. Which obviously the jury is still truly out on of course. But for the benefit of open minded science and a level playing field in terms of the research then developments are to be welcomed in terms of forcing some balance and perspective. However things eventually play out.

So, no, conspiracy theories are certainly not required. Things are hardly that desparate!! The perception of conspiracies derives from the converse reality of merely a wish to get to the truth. Any belief that over dominates is one to question imo. It often is at its weakest when it is decreed with the most confidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It remains a 'long game' in terms of seeing how net effects from all these factors play out. I do honestly think that moderate supporters from both opposite view sides of solar/natural vs man made climate change causes deep down equally believe that - but with the emphasis of the science being so heavily and unhealthily weighted towards the AGW element we have already moved some way from say 2006 when the likes of Livingston and Penn first made their predictions. The present position would have been dismissed then, let alone talk of Maunder mins etc. Which obviously the jury is still truly out on of course. But for the benefit of open minded science and a level playing field in terms of the research then developments are to be welcomed in terms of forcing some balance and perspective. However things eventually play out.

So, no, conspiracy theories are certainly not required. Things are hardly that desparate!! The perception of conspiracies derives from the converse reality of merely a wish to get to the truth. Any belief that over dominates is one to question imo. It often is at its weakest when it is decreed with the most confidence.

At the time of their findings, both Livingston & Penn were lampooned for their efforts. Now it appears that they could well be onto something! An open mind is all that is required, I do wish more warmists would remember that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but with the emphasis of the science being so heavily and unhealthily weighted towards the AGW element we have already moved some way from say 2006 when the likes of Livingston and Penn first made their predictions.

This is very true. A rudimentary search on Google brings up hundreds of articles offering theories as to why the concept of global warming is dead in the water. Granted, the vast majority of these are not peer-reviewed but it wasn't that long ago that the only literature available that supported the views of GW sceptics could be found on 'extremist' websites such as Ice Age Now (don't get me wrong, it's a good site but it is very single-minded). Now, a more balanced view is starting to get into the mainstream, and in my opinion this will, in time, turn the whole field of climate change on it's head.

As an aside, I was pondering the quiescent state of the sun and what it could mean in the medium/long term. If we are staring down the barrel of a Dalton minimum, how long before the effects are felt in the global climate? How much of a lag can we expect to see? What if we are looking at a Maunder-type minimum?

IMO, if the sun slips into a deep and prolonged minimum, we may be looking at a new LIA, and the potential forecasted consequences may be as bad as the outlandish predictions that AGW caused in the 1990's and early millenium. Even as a confirmed cold ramper, I must admit to being more than a little concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please can we cut out the warmist/deniers name-calling. It's not pretty and it doesn't add to anybody's argument and it only serves to help discussions degenerate into name-calling. If you can't make a point without such language consider if the point you are trying to make is actually worth it and stands up to a decent standard of discussion.

Can I also point out this thread is to discuss activity on the sun,predictions of activity and aurora. I've opened a thread in the more appropriate Climate Change area to discuss the effects of a quiet sun on our climate here:

http://www.netweathe...c-consequences/

Ta :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those that are interested, I have just started a poll on the possible depth of solar minimum. It's here:

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/topic/56643-how-severe-will-the-suns-minimum-be/page__pid__1585682__st__0entry1585682

Vote if you want but you can't post in the thread. For the discussion element, please see shuggee's new thread over in t'other forum!

Many thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those that are interested, I may start a poll on how many days the West of Scotland might go without spotting the sun. At all.

Current total is around 30.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we have an update from http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html. Interesting that the run that has just ended, they have as 32 days.

Meaning they did count a speck at the end of July.

Speck or no speck spot or no spot, the sun remains quiet. Looks like we maybe going to record the next spotless day soon, as the speck is fading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the time of their findings, both Livingston & Penn were lampooned for their efforts. Now it appears that they could well be onto something! An open mind is all that is required, I do wish more warmists would remember that!

how about this story :pardon:

http://www.scienceda...60307084500.htm

what makes me laugh when they mention there new computer model lol.

Edited by badboy657

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going quiter- holographic image which seemed to show a farside sunspot is not real.. it's just 'noise'.

sunspot 1025 has decayed already, it was a small, simple bxo spot/ speck.

could be counting again from zero, u decide weather that's good or bad [it's longgg]#

August avg. sunspots has come up on SC24 as 0.0, thankfully they haven't counted that annoying little sunspot that popped up on 31st [the last day]

It's hard to know whether this is just a blip of solar activity or the start of maunder/ sporer/ wolf style minimum.

how about this story :rofl:

http://www.scienceda...60307084500.htm

what makes me laugh when they mention there new computer model lol.

They honestly Couldn't have got that more wrong I suppose,...

except there still coulld be a big ramp up between 2009 and 2012, you never know- but i doubt it.

"The scientists gained additional confidence in the forecast by showingthat the newly developed model could simulate the strength of the pasteight solar cycles with more than 98 percent accuracy."

oh dear :pardon::(

Edited by OldGreggsTundraBoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going quiter- holographic image which seemed to show a farside sunspot is not real.. it's just 'noise'.

sunspot 1025 has decayed already, it was a small, simple bxo spot/ speck.

could be counting again from zero, u decide weather that's good or bad [it's longgg]#

August avg. sunspots has come up on SC24 as 0.0, thankfully they haven't counted that annoying little sunspot that popped up on 31st [the last day]

It's hard to know whether this is just a blip of solar activity or the start of maunder/ sporer/ wolf style minimum.

They honestly Couldn't have got that more wrong I suppose,...

except there still coulld be a big ramp up between 2009 and 2012, you never know- but i doubt it.

"The scientists gained additional confidence in the forecast by showingthat the newly developed model could simulate the strength of the pasteight solar cycles with more than 98 percent accuracy."

oh dear :pardon::rofl:

indeed oh dear as for our tiny little speck it put the count back to 0 more than likely nasa would count this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest North Sea Snow Convection

NASA latest prediction for SC24......

Posted Image

Edited by North Sea Snow Convection

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...