Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Wow, thanks! I like your track of investigating other stars to crack the code of planetary clocking's affect on solar activity! But your citation (found here) is somewhat mind-blowing, stating, "TTSs (i.e., young stars) are known to harbor spots and plages at their surfaces, generating RV (radial velocity) fluctuations with semi-amplitudes of several km/s10, i.e., much larger than the perturbations expected from a putative planet, even for close-in massive hJs (hot Jupiters) inducing typical RV signals of ~0.1!km/s." The way that is written suggests spots and plages are responsible for the star's velocity fluctuations, rather than the other way around?
  3. So now, one rotation later (than the data discussed above), here is the current IMPACT recording: Quite conspicuously, the sequence of activity recorded by IMPACT (plotted in Red) starting on Sept. 21, listed below, is very similar to what was observed in the data one rotation ago, with only slight differences: bump in Bx to 10nT; drop in By exceeding -10nT; rapid swings in Bz from >+10nT to >-10nT; bump in total B to almost +15nT; a rise of Np to ~13/cm^3, then it fell in sequence with... a ramp of V to over 600 km/s (eventually reaching ~700 km/s) and sustaining these elevated levels for over 1.5 days. If the pattern repeats, we expect a similar response mirrored in the ACE data (i.e., earthward), ~6 days later, starting on Sept. 26-27.
  4. Today
  5. Well, the IMPACT data has since shown that the activity this go-around, to arrive on Sept. 27, could be at least as active as last time. I've been waiting to see the duration for which the solar wind Velocity recorded at STEREO-A remains elevated, and it looks to be at least as long as last time. I'll provide further details in the new thread titled, "Spaceweather Forecast using IMPACT/PLASTIC".
  6. The following presentation on IMPACT/PLASTIC review may be new info to some readers. (I'm grateful to to Vancanneyt Sander of the spaceweatherlive crew for alerting me to the IMPACT resource.) IMPACT/PLASTIC is a solar wind monitor located on STEREO-A. DSCOVR/ACE are solar wind monitors in-line with earth, roughly the same distance from the sun as IMPACT. Solar wind (or other solar activity) can take 3 days (+/- 1 day) to arrive at IMPACT or ACE (from the sun). Solar activity recorded at IMPACT, if it continues, will arrive at ACE/DSCOVR ~6 days later (and at earth shortly thereafter), as that is the approximate time for the the sun to rotate an active position earthward after facing STEREO-A. Here are the positions of STEREO-A, approximately one solar rotation ago, and now: We observe that STEREO-A is just a bit 'advanced' now than it was on Aug. 25, which means the time-lag between IMPACT and ACE one rotation ago--being ~6 days then--will not be much different than what it is today. This explanation will become clearer after looking at the IMPACT data. Below is the IMPACT data (plotted in Red) from one rotation ago, where we see the following sequence of events, starting on Aug. 25 recorded at IMPACT: bump in Bx to >10nT; drop in By to -10nT; rapid swings in Bz from +10nT to -10nT; bump in total B to +15nT; a rise of Np to ~13/cm^3, then it fell in sequence with... a rapid rise of V to over 600 km/s, sustained at that level for over 1.5 days. The chart on the above right, shows a response in activity recorded on ACE (plotted in Brown) starting on Aug. 31, roughly six days after what was recorded on IMPACT. We see a similar sequence of events listed above, with just some slight differences. For example, the Velocity ramps a little slower, but it registers a higher magnitude (eventually reaching over 800 km/sec) than what was recorded by IMPACT six days earlier. (to be continued)
  7. The asymmetry is very interesting, there must be a cause. Thanks for posting, another rabbit hole to go down! 🤓 Here is an interesting lead of sorts; there is a planet about the size of Jupiter hugging a young 1 solar mass star from about 3 AU. You can see that the star is magnetically stressed where the planet is. https://phys.org/news/2016-06-newborn-giant-planet-grazes-star.amp
  8. Yesterday
  9. Dear Guest, et al please see: grandsolarminimum.com/ipcc-dismissed-natural-climate-changerisks/ solar and renewables will not suffice to heat or fuel civilization if, as postulated, another minimum soon sets in. And no nukes underway to satisfy electrical demand. Where will EVs and electronics get power? green new deal and ipcc “think” are perilous. Where is the earths thermostat? What should be acceptible normal environmental conditions? Surely 75 degrees worldwide is a fantasy. Methane in seas is normal, but somehow natural methane processes from decomposition in wetlands and simple digestive processes in cattle and other living things are to be controlled. Really!? Plumes of methane are erupting all over the sea floor ... along Atlantic and the Arctic new discoveries were made as recently as 2014. Methane is found on mars titan and elsewhere in our solar system. Hey diddle diddle and cow jumped over the moon was lovely piece of fancy ... but are we to assign as a source methane spewing cattle “out there”? also see comments from ipcc regarding the real intent of its goals, specifically comments from Ottmar Edenhoffer and Christiana Figueres; both outright speak not of climate preservation as goal but of wealth redistribution and globalization as true mission of ipcc. these tidbits get little or no mention in press. Surely VP Gore and his ilk do not mention either. real science demands reproducible , verifiable experimentation and examination with peer review. It is lacking in climate arguments. Build an earth with all operating inputs output etc. then let’s talk. Meanwhile we are pursuing policies based on models which have admitted exclusions, such as solar influence. The sun is the singular environmental engine input we all feel and see worldwide, with predictable seasonal cycles and daily variability. Yet the ipcc ignores it willfully. How can that be? look up Judith Lean ipcc and “judithgate”. What we currently have is “technique” run amok. Models are not science, nothing more than best guesses. Tools. Some useful, some not. Nothing more than tools. But not science. They are incomplete assumptions, lacking full understanding of our worlds workings. Leaving out solar inputs is criminal. That aside, new knowledge or observations are made regularly. What constitutes living organisms is variable let alone these organic influences. new species are discovered. Invasive species change loops. Things thought extinct live on. But as a populace most citizens I suspect don’t give a hoot. It’s easier to focus on ipcc as we are being led by governments, ngos, press, and popular culture. There is never discussion of it, and it will be ages yet, but our moon is slipping away. As it does there will be reallllllll environmental change that we cannot impact or control in any way. As is, we are precariously — and peculiarly — situated in the cosmos we know. Any deviation in our orbit a change of angle and life as we know it would cease. talk about change. Perhaps we should consider a grand scheme to preserve the lunar engine’s place. The big lie with ipcc is that change is unacceptable. That it can be managed. Let alone influenced. By admission 2 degrees was simply chosen for convenience. There is no basis for it other than that. Look it up. One simply has to look around. change is life and ito be expected. This place we live on is a changing thing, not fully understood. We live and die atop a whirling toaster oven with an internal, little understood heat source with surface level sinks and weather systems that are regular but unpredictable. But without which life could not survive, without which an ordinary thing as purified water would not be carried about and deposited for our benefit. LGR
  10. So does this new solar dynamo theory explain the huge asymmetry in the number of sunspots between hemispheres that the sun is currently undergoing, per the following figure? (Source of figure.) This may sound preposterous, but could it have anything to do with clocked planetary positions relative to the ecliptic plane (primarily Saturn, and even Pluto, due to their greater inclinations to the ecliptic)? Note, there was an even larger asymmetry during the SC 19/20 minimum, per the following figure:
  11. The Composite Solar Lyman-alpha, Time Series has recently manifest two localized breakout signals: We await an update of data from the Lyman-alpha Model Solar Spectral Irradiance, Time Series, but it, as yet, does not reveal the second breakout signal: The SORCE SOLSTICE High-Res Solar Spectral Irradiance, Time Series (plotted at 121.5625nm, i.e., close to Lyman-Alpha) is not displaying the breakout signals (figure below). Nonetheless, all three are showing signs of 'hammering-out-a-bottom', as described in the next figure: The Solar Lyman-Alpha is displaying a flattening-out of the ringdown's cyclical lows (i.e., during the descending phase of a large multi-month 'magnetic structure cycle'). The Solar Lyman-Alpha is, in essence, now 'hammering-out-the-bottom', an indication that the Solar Minimum Nadir is in the vicinity; we are close to the Nadir. The Lyman-Alpha is at Nadir levels, but until sunspots return, the Lyman-Alpha will just remain down here on the floor, at these levels, as the Nadir point moves further out in time (to the right on the graph). The breakout signals are a possible sign that sunspots will be returning (relatively soon?). At a minimum, they (maybe?) indicate that coronal bright points are becoming more numerous and/or more energetic.
  12. Last week
  13. I think this is very interesting. One of the main points in their (relatively*) new dynamo theory is that the sunspot generation process is contained within only a thin, 100-300km thick, region just below the photosphere. [On relative scale dimensions--the sun diameter being ~109x that of earth--it would be like going down to a depth of only ~1.7 miles on earth.] In contrast, conventional dynamo theory has sunspot generation occurring at 30% radial depth, down at the tachocline, where the flux tubes are then buoyantly conveyed to the surface. (*They have been working on it a for a few years, related to their observations from fusion research.) Another interesting point in their theory, somewhat related to what we have recently been discussing, is that prominences are the means by which plasma layers are sloughed off to expose spots for the new cycle. If spots are indeed constrained to such a relatively thin layer, then maybe their manifestation would be more susceptible to what has previously been thought to be just 'weak' perturbation forces from planetary tidal pull (or even planetary electro-magnetic connection?).
  14. No, it is in the clear, https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5087613 as well as the direct pdf file: http://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5087613?class=pdf
  15. Article here, I found it interesting given the hypothetical planetary clocking debate. There is a paper but it is behind a paywall 😒 https://www.phys.org/news/2019-09-plasma-sun-surface-sunspots-solar.html
  16. On Android we fixed a few bugs after the initial 1.1 release where the app could crash on older devices after purchasing subscription. For iOS we updated the app to match iOS 13 dark mode settings. The app now adapts to the system setting of iOS. If you enable dark mode on iOS, it will be like that in the app as well! If you set it to automatic on iOS, the app will switch automatically as well. How convenient 👍
  17. The Ap data site I use is here … http://eng.sepc.ac.cn/ApIndex.php ... Examining the data around March 2012 shows well the impact under consideration, but there does not appear to be any repetitive incidents - much like the one August 26 2018, it seems to have been an isolated CME. A good impression of the time scale involved in impact reactions can be seen in the satellite tracking problems chart related to impact 13/14 March 1989 (see https://howtheatmosphereworks.wordpress.com/about/dynamic-behaviour/ … ) March seems to be a recurring theme, significant ?
  18. We've seen persistent solar magnetic structures can last several rotations (months). (I'd have to find it, but I think I came across some references discussing recurring structure that can last years. If so, does that not put a wrench in conventional solar dynamo models?) Interesting question then: where was the structure coming around the east limb, relative to the one you discuss back in 2012? (With the sun's differential rotation stacking up after so many years, I'm not sure how one could readily determine that.) The STEREO-A Impact data indicates (so far) the solar output/disturbance from this go around is not as bad as the last time (at the end of August). (The actual impact is a function of the IMF interaction with earth, which can nonetheless produce aurora surprises from 'stealth' geo-storm disturbance.) Another related point point of discussion is what the structure (discussed above, coming around the east limb) looked like on its trip one rotation before the CH923 trip (see coronal hole table). It's very interesting, supporting the idea that the magnetic field occlusion in the corona, before significant coronal hole development, resulted in CME's (directed roughly earthward back then, as seen in the STEREO-A coronagraph.) Once the coronal holes developed, the CME's reduced but the solar wind velocity picked up. (I'll try to get to this, when I return later.)
  19. Just for interest, NASA's 'Flurry' refers to a solar impact dated March 8-10 2012; NASA's hurricane archives dated 03.19.12 record as follows :- On Saturday, March 17, 2012, (Cyclone) Lua's center crossed the Australia coastline at Pardoo about 3 p.m. (local time/Australia) bringing winds gusting up to 155 mph (250 kph) and heavy rainfall. Previous forecast March 16, 2012 …. maximum sustained winds were near ...86 mph/139 kph ... forecast to strengthen to ...103.6 mph/166.7 kph ...before making landfall -. A significant increase?
  20. Thanks for the correction. Been doing too much travelling recently, chronic jet lag is taking hold , but glad to see someone is paying attention! Around the end of the month gives us an excellent opportunity to observe - interesting times!
  21. Thanks for the response. I’ve read that Nature paper and some of the comments being posted on academic sites. Sadly, the situation has devolved into in-fighting about global warming and the discussion about minimum has disappeared. I keep up on direct imaging of other stars, and recall reading in the paper about Zeta Re that not only was Doppler imaging used but also interferometry, so they were able to discern that there was increased levels of magnetism where the dark spots were.
  22. Actually, this is not 'dynamic', for our sun, relatively speaking. When the sun is this quiet during solar minimum, it affords us the opportunity to perform 'microscopic evaluation' of flux response to at least try and pin it on a particular type of activity. Generally, when the sun is more active, we would not be able to discern which particular phenomenon is moving the flux around here and there, by just a few points. A few months ago, I could directly see a correlation of radio flux boost corresponding to the advent of a sunspot (in conjunction with its very minor flaring). Another reason I'm paying close attention to the flux down here is to see when 'bottoming-out' for SC24 occurs. Regarding other stars, I'm sure they can vary a great deal, depending upon their age. I thought that article you referenced on the observed dark spots on other stars was pretty interesting. However, it wasn't clear whether the darkened areas they were seeing were sunspots, or possibly coronal holes, since the imaging resolution was pretty poor. --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- The moving around of the solar radio flux by a few points, down here at solar minimum, when there doesn't appear to be any discernible activity behind it, is interesting in itself. Maybe there is an answer (or a scientific paper yet to be written) out there to explain it. But maybe a reason for elevated F10.7cm flux without sunspots is already being discussed, per the Svalgaard paper I referenced recently over in the thread titled, Article published on Nature.com predicts new Maunder Minimum, wherein we read: "There is a minimum field strength in visible spots of about 1500 Gauss(0.15 T), and as that 1500 G threshold is approached, magnetic fields appear at the solar surface which do not seem to form dark sunspots or pores. ...the photospheric flux emergence in such cases may take place in flux tubes with fields too weak, or too small a diameter, to form sunspots..." And, "(the) stable relationship between the 10.7 flux and the sunspot number...has steadily deteriorated in the past decade to the point where the sunspot number for a given flux has decreased by about a third."
  23. So the flux is down to 66 and the sun visually appears somewhat relaxed again. I wonder if other stars are this dynamic.
  24. Thank you! They provide a great service to the public. I hope they can figure it out.
  25. 10” is big so If the filter itself is also 10” than the view will be very bright. Reducing it will help. I haven’t build a solar filter for my Orion 12” Dobson because it was too big and more risk of damaging the filter. I had an old 11cm scope which was good enough for the Sun but still no granules. But from what I’ve read you should have an extra filter on your ocular which further reduces the light to reveal details. Take a look at https://www.astromarket.org/filters/blocking-filters/15_15_36/m,Baader-Planetarium
  26. Good to go. https://twitter.com/CovertGoat/status/1174405818483011584?s=20
  27. Some more interesting oddities in the F10.7cm data, eh? You do twitter, yes? Would you mind asking them if their F10.7cm data has been hacked? https://twitter.com/SpaceWeatherCA
  28. I just came across some information regarding the potential consequences to the Total Solar Irradiance in an era of lower sunspots. The most shocking thing to me is that this is rarely, if ever, mentioned in the online debates regarding a potential impending Grand Solar Minimum. The statement comes from Leif Svalgaard (probably one of the more recognized contemporary solar physicists) in the article, Solar activity – past, present, future, (J. Space Weather Space Clim. 3 (2013) A24 DOI: 10.1051/swsc/2013046): "the number of visible spots in the next cycle (and perhaps beyond) may fall to values not seen since the Maunder Minimum, but without dramatic changes in the emerging magnetic flux. Without the dark spots, Total Solar Irradiance might even be a bit higher." In the typical discussion on the matter, such as the article Global Warming vs. Solar Cooling: The Showdown Begins in 2020, this contrarian view is not discussed. Any comment on this information, Emilio Petrozzi?
  29. I am using a 10" XT10i Orion Dob. I first made the off axis aperture about 3.5", found the sun pretty bright. I reduced it to about 1.5" only and it's still bright, but not as much as was. Does having this small of an aperture ok for the sole purpose of reducing the brightness of the sun? What about the heat being trapped inside the telescope due to covering the open end? Is that of any concern?
  1. Load more activity
  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?
    Sign Up
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you also agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.