Solar Cycle. - Page 4 - TWO Community Climate Forum - TheWeatherOutlook

Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Error

Have you seen?

TheWeatherOutlook » TWO Community Discussion » TWO Community Climate Forum » Solar Cycle.

15 Pages«<2 345 6 >»

Solar Cycle.

Options

Previous Topic Next Topic

Younger Dryas		#61 Posted : 30 November 2011 12:24:02(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 01/08/2007(UTC) Posts: 7,638 Location: London (Mostly)		Originally Posted by: Devonian Arguable I suppose, but the last solar maximum SN average (and an active cycle?) looks to me (from the SolarHam graphs) to be about 120? I'm actually quite surprised how active the sun is. It looks to me as if the Hathaway prediction will be right or even a little under what happens Not an expert, but there are different ways of reporting this number, aren't there? http://solarham.com/averages.htm The RI number seems to be the one covered in the graph at the bottom. As you can see from the table, this is much in excess of the SN number seen in the table. So, when the current month gets entered in the graph as an RI number, it will likely be much lower than the equivalent SN number that you were reporting. I do wish this site explained the difference between the numbers, but perhaps someone here knows


User Profile View All Posts by User

Devonian		#62 Posted : 30 November 2011 12:30:03(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 02/05/2006(UTC) Posts: 11,054 Location: SE Devon		Originally Posted by: Younger Dryas Originally Posted by: Devonian Arguable I suppose, but the last solar maximum SN average (and an active cycle?) looks to me (from the SolarHam graphs) to be about 120? I'm actually quite surprised how active the sun is. It looks to me as if the Hathaway prediction will be right or even a little under what happens Not an expert, but there are different ways of reporting this number, aren't there? http://solarham.com/averages.htm The RI number seems to be the one covered in the graph at the bottom. As you can see from the table, this is much in excess of the SN number seen in the table. So, when the current month gets entered in the graph as an RI number, it will likely be much lower than the equivalent SN number that you were reporting. I do wish this site explained the difference between the numbers, but perhaps someone here knows Erm, yes, I think you are right. Or is the figure a monthly average of daily figures?


User Profile View All Posts by User

Younger Dryas		#63 Posted : 30 November 2011 12:37:56(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 01/08/2007(UTC) Posts: 7,638 Location: London (Mostly)		Originally Posted by: Devonian Originally Posted by: Younger Dryas Originally Posted by: Devonian Arguable I suppose, but the last solar maximum SN average (and an active cycle?) looks to me (from the SolarHam graphs) to be about 120? I'm actually quite surprised how active the sun is. It looks to me as if the Hathaway prediction will be right or even a little under what happens Not an expert, but there are different ways of reporting this number, aren't there? http://solarham.com/averages.htm The RI number seems to be the one covered in the graph at the bottom. As you can see from the table, this is much in excess of the SN number seen in the table. So, when the current month gets entered in the graph as an RI number, it will likely be much lower than the equivalent SN number that you were reporting. I do wish this site explained the difference between the numbers, but perhaps someone here knows Erm, yes, I think you are right. Or is the figure a monthly average of daily figures? Pretty sure looking at the sources of the table ("Information") that there are two series of sunspots - one from SWO / NOAA and another from SIDC in Belgium. I just looked up the SIDC site and it appears that they only report their numbers once a month on the first day of each month. However, it is their numbers that go into the graph at the bottom of the page on Solarham. The SWO / NOAA number seems to come through daily, which is why the site carries their number on the front page. However, I have seen that number go down in the last few days, so assume it must be a rolling last 30 days number, whilst the table in the link above carries the SWO / NOAA number for the month. Apologies if people know all this already. It appears that SWO / NOAA always get a higher number than SIDC, so when the latter comes through for this month and the graph is updated, I would expect a number around 80 Edited by user 30 November 2011 12:40:11(UTC) \| Reason: Not specified


User Profile View All Posts by User

Gandalf The White		#64 Posted : 30 November 2011 12:49:52(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 12/04/2006(UTC) Posts: 12,499		Originally Posted by: Younger Dryas Pretty sure looking at the sources of the table ("Information") that there are two series of sunspots - one from SWO / NOAA and another from SIDC in Belgium. I just looked up the SIDC site and it appears that they only report their numbers once a month on the first day of each month. However, it is their numbers that go into the graph at the bottom of the page on Solarham. The SWO / NOAA number seems to come through daily, which is why the site carries their number on the front page. However, I have seen that number go down in the last few days, so assume it must be a rolling last 30 days number, whilst the table in the link above carries the SWO / NOAA number for the month. Apologies if people know all this already. It appears that SWO / NOAA always get a higher number than SIDC, so when the latter comes through for this month and the graph is updated, I would expect a number around 80 Thanks YD, that's useful
		Location: Watford, Hertfordshire 65m ASL 51.68N, 0.38W


User Profile View All Posts by User

Devonian		#65 Posted : 30 November 2011 13:26:06(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 02/05/2006(UTC) Posts: 11,054 Location: SE Devon		Originally Posted by: Younger Dryas Originally Posted by: Devonian Originally Posted by: Younger Dryas Originally Posted by: Devonian Arguable I suppose, but the last solar maximum SN average (and an active cycle?) looks to me (from the SolarHam graphs) to be about 120? I'm actually quite surprised how active the sun is. It looks to me as if the Hathaway prediction will be right or even a little under what happens Not an expert, but there are different ways of reporting this number, aren't there? http://solarham.com/averages.htm The RI number seems to be the one covered in the graph at the bottom. As you can see from the table, this is much in excess of the SN number seen in the table. So, when the current month gets entered in the graph as an RI number, it will likely be much lower than the equivalent SN number that you were reporting. I do wish this site explained the difference between the numbers, but perhaps someone here knows Erm, yes, I think you are right. Or is the figure a monthly average of daily figures? Pretty sure looking at the sources of the table ("Information") that there are two series of sunspots - one from SWO / NOAA and another from SIDC in Belgium. I just looked up the SIDC site and it appears that they only report their numbers once a month on the first day of each month. However, it is their numbers that go into the graph at the bottom of the page on Solarham. The SWO / NOAA number seems to come through daily, which is why the site carries their number on the front page. However, I have seen that number go down in the last few days, so assume it must be a rolling last 30 days number, whilst the table in the link above carries the SWO / NOAA number for the month. Apologies if people know all this already. It appears that SWO / NOAA always get a higher number than SIDC, so when the latter comes through for this month and the graph is updated, I would expect a number around 80 Yup, I think this is right as well. Good thing is we'll soon know if it was 80.


User Profile View All Posts by User

broken nail		#66 Posted : 01 December 2011 01:25:06(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 03/12/2007(UTC) Posts: 4,502 Location: Finchampstead, Berkshire		Originally Posted by: Devonian Originally Posted by: Younger Dryas Originally Posted by: Devonian Originally Posted by: Younger Dryas Originally Posted by: Devonian Arguable I suppose, but the last solar maximum SN average (and an active cycle?) looks to me (from the SolarHam graphs) to be about 120? I'm actually quite surprised how active the sun is. It looks to me as if the Hathaway prediction will be right or even a little under what happens Not an expert, but there are different ways of reporting this number, aren't there? http://solarham.com/averages.htm The RI number seems to be the one covered in the graph at the bottom. As you can see from the table, this is much in excess of the SN number seen in the table. So, when the current month gets entered in the graph as an RI number, it will likely be much lower than the equivalent SN number that you were reporting. I do wish this site explained the difference between the numbers, but perhaps someone here knows Erm, yes, I think you are right. Or is the figure a monthly average of daily figures? Pretty sure looking at the sources of the table ("Information") that there are two series of sunspots - one from SWO / NOAA and another from SIDC in Belgium. I just looked up the SIDC site and it appears that they only report their numbers once a month on the first day of each month. However, it is their numbers that go into the graph at the bottom of the page on Solarham. The SWO / NOAA number seems to come through daily, which is why the site carries their number on the front page. However, I have seen that number go down in the last few days, so assume it must be a rolling last 30 days number, whilst the table in the link above carries the SWO / NOAA number for the month. Apologies if people know all this already. It appears that SWO / NOAA always get a higher number than SIDC, so when the latter comes through for this month and the graph is updated, I would expect a number around 80 Yup, I think this is right as well. Good thing is we'll soon know if it was 80. There is a thread on solar ham where the discussion turns to sunspot counts and the discrepencies between them, looks like the SIDC has been undercounting, and there is going to be some discussions and descisions about what to do some time in the new year. Edit and to Devonian's first point in the quotes, Hathaway's predictions from back in 2008? According to those the sun is nowhere near the level of activity he proposed, but then he changed his prediction a few times when the cycle failed to start when he said it would. Edited by user 01 December 2011 01:29:00(UTC) \| Reason: Not specified


User Profile View All Posts by User

Devonian		#67 Posted : 01 December 2011 07:57:24(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 02/05/2006(UTC) Posts: 11,054 Location: SE Devon		Originally Posted by: broken nail Originally Posted by: Devonian Originally Posted by: Younger Dryas Originally Posted by: Devonian Originally Posted by: Younger Dryas Originally Posted by: Devonian Arguable I suppose, but the last solar maximum SN average (and an active cycle?) looks to me (from the SolarHam graphs) to be about 120? I'm actually quite surprised how active the sun is. It looks to me as if the Hathaway prediction will be right or even a little under what happens Not an expert, but there are different ways of reporting this number, aren't there? http://solarham.com/averages.htm The RI number seems to be the one covered in the graph at the bottom. As you can see from the table, this is much in excess of the SN number seen in the table. So, when the current month gets entered in the graph as an RI number, it will likely be much lower than the equivalent SN number that you were reporting. I do wish this site explained the difference between the numbers, but perhaps someone here knows Erm, yes, I think you are right. Or is the figure a monthly average of daily figures? Pretty sure looking at the sources of the table ("Information") that there are two series of sunspots - one from SWO / NOAA and another from SIDC in Belgium. I just looked up the SIDC site and it appears that they only report their numbers once a month on the first day of each month. However, it is their numbers that go into the graph at the bottom of the page on Solarham. The SWO / NOAA number seems to come through daily, which is why the site carries their number on the front page. However, I have seen that number go down in the last few days, so assume it must be a rolling last 30 days number, whilst the table in the link above carries the SWO / NOAA number for the month. Apologies if people know all this already. It appears that SWO / NOAA always get a higher number than SIDC, so when the latter comes through for this month and the graph is updated, I would expect a number around 80 Yup, I think this is right as well. Good thing is we'll soon know if it was 80. There is a thread on solar ham where the discussion turns to sunspot counts and the discrepencies between them, looks like the SIDC has been undercounting, and there is going to be some discussions and descisions about what to do some time in the new year. Edit and to Devonian's first point in the quotes, Hathaway's predictions from back in 2008? According to those the sun is nowhere near the level of activity he proposed, but then he changed his prediction a few times when the cycle failed to start when he said it would. I think I was looking at his latest prediction but I may be wrong. No time to check now...


User Profile View All Posts by User

polarwind		#68 Posted : 01 December 2011 08:22:32(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 04/05/2006(UTC) Posts: 4,284 Location: Derby		quote broken nail There is a thread on solar ham where the discussion turns to sunspot counts and the discrepencies between them, looks like the SIDC has been undercounting, and there is going to be some discussions and descisions about what to do some time in the new year. Edit and to Devonian's first point in the quotes, Hathaway's predictions from back in 2008? According to those the sun is nowhere near the level of activity he proposed, but then he changed his prediction a few times when the cycle failed to start when he said it would. [/quote]That's the way I remember it.
		"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". - Bertrand Russell "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman Dave Derby


User Profile View All Posts by User

Gavin P		#69 Posted : 16 December 2011 19:21:55(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 05/04/2006(UTC) Posts: 16,841		Solar activity at "very low levels" http://solarham.com/
		Rural West Northants 120m asl Short, medium and long range weather forecast videos @ http://gavsweathervids.com/
		WWW Twitter

User Profile View All Posts by User

broken nail		#70 Posted : 17 December 2011 22:14:37(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 03/12/2007(UTC) Posts: 4,502 Location: Finchampstead, Berkshire		Originally Posted by: Devonian Originally Posted by: broken nail Edit and to Devonian's first point in the quotes, Hathaway's predictions from back in 2008? According to those the sun is nowhere near the level of activity he proposed, but then he changed his prediction a few times when the cycle failed to start when he said it would. I think I was looking at his latest prediction but I may be wrong. No time to check now... The only thing that appears might be correct is that we are looking to be at maximum now (it might be a stretched out max or not, but the Hansen pediction was for a peaked max). They got the start wrong, the intensity wrong, and possibly the overall length wrong too.


User Profile View All Posts by User

Gavin P		#71 Posted : 21 December 2011 11:46:17(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 05/04/2006(UTC) Posts: 16,841		Yes, its a comparative thing. Of course the Sun is not going to be "inactive" because we're only a year or so away from the "maximum" of cycle 24, but compared to many recent cycles this maximum is going to a lot weaker than would be typically expected - Hence the "low" "weak" comments.
		Rural West Northants 120m asl Short, medium and long range weather forecast videos @ http://gavsweathervids.com/
		WWW Twitter

User Profile View All Posts by User

Steam Fog		#72 Posted : 04 January 2012 23:24:51(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 25/08/2010(UTC) Posts: 2,031 Location: Brighton		http://www.solen.info/solar/cyclcomp2.html Looks like its been dropping off a little since early December though. http://www.solen.info/solar/index.html


User Profile View All Posts by User

Steam Fog		#73 Posted : 13 January 2012 09:25:59(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 25/08/2010(UTC) Posts: 2,031 Location: Brighton		Continuing a gradual downward trend. http://www.solen.info/solar/index.html


User Profile View All Posts by User

RobSnowman		#74 Posted : 13 January 2012 09:36:04(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 05/05/2006(UTC) Posts: 2,233		Originally Posted by: Steam Fog Continuing a gradual downward trend. http://www.solen.info/solar/index.html Can only be another good sign for Northern blocking further down the line. Another positive factor.
		Currently in Manchester. I built this snowman of myself.


User Profile View All Posts by User

nouska		#75 Posted : 17 January 2012 12:37:41(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 05/04/2006(UTC) Posts: 2,068 Location: SW France		Steam Fog linked this article in the media thread. http://www.scientificame...whats-causing-dry-winter The subject matter took me to the CET record to see if there were similar events in the past. I notice the early Dalton saw a couple of similar events where big swings were witnessed in consecutive years. In fact, big swings from month to month in the winters of that period in general. Dec 1788 -0.3 Dec 1789 6.1 Dec 1795 6.6 Dec 1796 -0.3 Dec 1797 4.8 More evidence for solar influence or something else in the bigger picture? http://www.metoffice.gov...s/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat


User Profile View All Posts by User

Gandalf The White		#76 Posted : 17 January 2012 13:07:06(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 12/04/2006(UTC) Posts: 12,499		Originally Posted by: nouska Steam Fog linked this article in the media thread. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=whats-causing-dry-winter The subject matter took me to the CET record to see if there were similar events in the past. I notice the early Dalton saw a couple of similar events where big swings were witnessed in consecutive years. In fact, big swings from month to month in the winters of that period in general. Dec 1788 -0.3 Dec 1789 6.1 Dec 1795 6.6 Dec 1796 -0.3 Dec 1797 4.8 More evidence for solar influence or something else in the bigger picture? http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat An interesting article, except for the questionable comments seeming to sugegst a correlation between the cold December 2010 and "low sunspot activity" and warm December 2011 and "high sunspot activity" - the latter was not remotely especially high in comparison with past cycles, so it may be A factor but I doubt that it can be the MAIN factor in explaining the strange patterns. The article refers to global warming but of course that can't possibly be a factor...
		Location: Watford, Hertfordshire 65m ASL 51.68N, 0.38W


User Profile View All Posts by User

polarwind		#77 Posted : 21 January 2012 11:49:51(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 04/05/2006(UTC) Posts: 4,284 Location: Derby		Big CME heading our way. Magnetic storms etc. Blackouts? See - Spaceweather.com Someting to keep an eye on - so to speak. Edited by user 21 January 2012 11:57:32(UTC) \| Reason: Not specified
		"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". - Bertrand Russell "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman Dave Derby


User Profile View All Posts by User

Gandalf The White		#78 Posted : 21 January 2012 11:53:01(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 12/04/2006(UTC) Posts: 12,499		Originally Posted by: polarwind Big CME heading our way. Magnetic storms etc. Blackouts? See - Spaceweather.com Someting to keep an eye on - so to speak. Cannot make the link work - but this was mentioned obliquely on the weather forecast this morning. Good chance to see the Aurora in NE Scotland tonight, which must be linked to the strength of the storm
		Location: Watford, Hertfordshire 65m ASL 51.68N, 0.38W


User Profile View All Posts by User

polarwind		#79 Posted : 21 January 2012 12:00:30(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 04/05/2006(UTC) Posts: 4,284 Location: Derby		Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White Originally Posted by: polarwind Big CME heading our way. Magnetic storms etc. Blackouts? See - Spaceweather.com Someting to keep an eye on - so to speak. Cannot make the link work - but this was mentioned obliquely on the weather forecast this morning. Good chance to see the Aurora in NE Scotland tonight, which must be linked to the strength of the storm Thanks, Gandalf, have amended in the first post and repeat it here - Spaceweather
		"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". - Bertrand Russell "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman Dave Derby


User Profile View All Posts by User

AIMSIR		#80 Posted : 21 January 2012 12:02:50(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 04/01/2008(UTC) Posts: 5,740 Location: Dublin		Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White Originally Posted by: polarwind Big CME heading our way. Magnetic storms etc. Blackouts? See - Spaceweather.com Someting to keep an eye on - so to speak. Cannot make the link work - but this was mentioned obliquely on the weather forecast this morning. Good chance to see the Aurora in NE Scotland tonight, which must be linked to the strength of the storm I watched report on TV last week and it looked good for an Aurora as far south as London. Granted it was a bit over the top and recommended an area with little light pollution. I was thinking if the cupboard under the stairs might be a good place to see it. Joking aside,This could be a good opportunity on the way for viewing an Aurora. Edited by user 21 January 2012 12:08:06(UTC) \| Reason: Not specified


User Profile View All Posts by User

Users browsing this topic
Guest (3)

15 Pages«<2 345 6 >» Go to Page...

TheWeatherOutlook » TWO Community Discussion » TWO Community Climate Forum » Solar Cycle.

Forum Jump

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.