Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. The region has still a fairly simple magnetic structure so even with the current development it doesn't pose a risk in solar flares. It's nice to see a region of the new cycle that lives long enough and after it's decay grew again. If it gets more complex, chances will rise for C-class flares. Solen is indeed a good source, it has a good automated spot detection and I used it a lot in the past. At SpaceWeatherLive we also do in depth analysis once the region has gained a potential for increased risk on strong solar flares. Once a region is complex enough we always do our Delta spot search and do the analysis in a news update. It's also possible to learn this by visiting our help section and read the articles about the magnetic classification of sunspots and the classification of spots, but it requires some training so please follow the sources and you'll learn quickly enough to judge if a region has potential. Also browse around the solar activity forum, Im sure there are some very good topics of active regions where we discussed active regions.
  3. A great supplementary source of information about sunspots, coronal holes, and events throughout the day, in addition to some archived information throughout the years(in case you feel like digging in to the nitty gritty) is this website: http://www.solen.info/solar/ I usually come to the Space Weather Live website first, to see anything worth seeing. If there appears to be activity, I then check that website for annotated insight as to the current events. This sunspot has evolved quite rapidly, so I do think it has a chance of getting larger, and even producing some small, but meaningful flares. The bigger it gets, the higher the chance for an M-class flare, and those are always exciting Whenever this happens to a sunspot rotating towards Earth, it does beg our attention. It is still all one sunspot, and it receives a designation based on the magnetic configuration of the spot - see more here: https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/help/the-magnetic-classification-of-sunspots As for it being active/real, Solen does a decent job of commenting on the matter, however, you may observe the various SDO images and GOES images to get near-real time perspective of what the sunspot is doing, whether it be filaments, loops, or coronal holes. Use this to help understand the information you get from SWPC, Solen, and Space Weather Live!
  4. Thanks alot for your answer Christopher! I'd love to hear more. Im really interested. Do you think it will get even bigger now? It grew 1 more tiny sunspot i think! Btw: i have a problem figuring out if something is only active or a real sunspot, any tips?:) ty!
  5. It is natural for sunspots to wax and wane until they fade out of existence. It's kind of like a thunder storm, only in the sense that it could go as quickly as it came, or it could last for a long time, or its remnants could bloom into yet another wave of convection. Remember, though, that sunspots inhibit convection of the plasma around the surface of the sun, and therefore heating and cooling take place at very uneven rates; in its attempt to reach equilibrium, it instead amplified the total entropy and thus we have a more interesting phenomenon to observe.
  6. Hey Community. Today I'm watching the new Sunspot, and at first when it rolled into earth view, it decayed. Now, it looks like its growing again. How is that possible? Does it now count as a bigger threat for big solar flares? Sorry, im new to spaceweather. is there any way to predict if it will decay again? I saw your update on Facebook and wondered if you maybe could do them more often.
  7. Yesterday
  8. Last week
  9. The solar minimum taken individually does not produce large short-term changes but the decreasing solar cycles can certainly be blamed for over half a century to today.
  10. Sorry, my tired eyes read 124 days this morning Now I see it says 125.. My mistake
  11. yesterday was spotless, the day before not (AR12764 on June 1st), so it was a plus one: 125 days in 2020 en last 365 days 125 days. PS: yes the table updates daily 馃槈 somewhere after 0h UTC
  12. I think there are technically two sunspots, according to SWPC. You can see them here: http://www.solen.info/solar/ It could be that is why the bottom two numbers are the same, although the "Last 365 days" figure would then be incorrect. Edit: The table has updated, and appears completely fine. Check main page.
  13. I believe there is an small error, it seems like the "2020 spotless days" is not counting days. Today, after 2 spotless days, it still on 124 days for 2020.
  14. There's an active region with a decent sized spot rotating around the east limb at high latitudes, definitely is less decayed than the other region when it was rotating through the east limb.
  15. @VoltarDark Yes ... the Summer (UV) is (at least) a part of the virus disappearing. Check out these yearly death numbers (all causes) . you can clearly see a High in every Winter vs Low in every Summer. (all countries in Europe) HERE: https://euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps (check many graphs, per country, per age ...etc) This shows what i call the "Short-term effect" (1yr cycle ). If (as shown above) there is a short-term effect from the Sun ... which PRECISELY ! synchronises with (UV) intensity-levels that reach earth ...... Then there must be a "Long-term effect" (11yr cycle) also ... which in that case follows the solar-cycle intensity-levels that reach earth. As a matter of fact every change (nomatter up or down or short or long ) in solar-intensity (per wavelength) has effect on life and virus on Earth. Some life likes high levels of radiation ...and another type of life likes low levels. It is so simple isn't it ? ... no need to be a solar-expert ! In addition ... each life-form responds to certain (different) wavelengths ... even dead materials (elements) do ! ... Google for "Action-Spectrum" (Action-spectrum is a group of wavelengths that certain life or material reacts to) This effect is used in for example in spectrum-analysis of drug-samples (absorption-spectrum) ... there is a database of "Action-Spectra" for each drug the machine compares it with the sample ...if it matches ...bingo ! i have read many scientific papers where they researched this. They radiated viruses/bacteria with different UV wavelenghts ...and measured absorption and reflection. they found that they all react to more then just one wavelength ... for example 4 or 9 different wavelengths. (''spectrum") All types react to different (groups of) wavelenghts ... it depends on their sizes, or size of sensors, or structure. Interesting ... i read that life in the sea/ocean reacts mostly to 475 nanometers. They found that water has the best "transmission" (lowest loss) at 475 nanometer. that wavelength will go deepest ... Wonderful how life adapts to everything !
  16. There is a debate about the virus losing potency but without any known mutation causing it. What is causing this ? The summer ? If it is as related to uvs as we think it is, then this fall will be bad. Uvs will get lower til the 23 December 2020 and it is also the when the earth is the furthest from the sun in its orbit. Light is related square of distance... So i understand that the virus was already declining when it hit us, but then this time it will be an apex. Better be ready then sorry.
  17. Fai delle analisi interessanti ma penso che lamentarci ci aiuti poco. I believe that quantifying such values is almost impossible.
  18. It's a research that hasn't been done because of the lack of data we have of the farside. Not every bright arc on Stereo is a sunspot region (unless they cause flares that can be observed from Stereo and is always very likely to be associated with a sunspot region) so it's difficult to get numbers from that side. In SC24 we have also seen some major activity on the farside but those regions never survived long enough to have some activity left on the frontside. In any case, we will have regions that will form on the visible solar disk. there's just not a pattern to it to which longitude they will form and the lifetime of any region is also very variable.
  19. I have been watching the Sun for over a year now and I have noticed that during the summer of 2019 we had a few small sunspots form on the backside and die before they went over the east limb, and we have been seeing this again over the past month or so and I am curious whether we will get as many sunspots on the earth side as the far side. I am also curious whether there are causes to this.
  20. You replied as expected. Nice going. A bit flowery with the opening though. I thought that this was a site for science discussion, even if one disagrees with what is being proposed. So no nice chat over an aged Bordeaux, and I am no aristocrat. I stated clearly and simply what I consider to be an overlooked/unseen important aspect of what drives the climate of the planet. My forecast which I made at the beginning of February actually was formed back in December. I made a comment on Feb 1st presenting the forecast in a simple statement . My forecast was 100% right, as can be seen by looking at actual temp change in the 3.4 region. Note that NOAAs primary forecast for 60% neutral through the end of the summer was a total miss when the 3.4 region dropped down to -0.6C over the course of the last week. It has since bumped back up a few tenths. Here is more on how I have derived my thoughts, ... https://goldminor.wordpress.com/2020/01/17/sun-enso-atmospheric-temps-correlation/ I plan to prove through the course of this year that I can accurately forecast temp shifts in the 3.4 region. It is my only way to show others that what I have seen is correct. I do not have the science and mathematical background to speak in terms which would be more understandable. What I do have is 12 years of reading climate science related material, and putting my mind to work sorting out the puzzles. I am equipped in that regard with a well above average mentality, and a great inner curiosity. So I am a bit proud of my initial success at getting this first part of the forecast. Therefore I speak out, and add further thought. Right? I mean just how effective would it be if I came out to claim that I successfully forecast last weeks weather?
  21. Opinions derive from expressing a certain point of view regarding certain scientific facts. The language you describe as "frightening" implies your own descriptive point of view to which not everyone could agree.
  22. What is the point of this comment? What are you even talking about? I wrote what I wrote to demonstrate the fact that just speaking feelings and opinions and attaching them to science to make bold claims with "scary" language isn't fair to anybody. Never mind, I see that I'm not speaking with someone of an adult mind. To take a defensive-confrontational stance and dismiss what I have written as simply an opposing, bigoted opinion is indicative of someone just seeking attention on a forum/trolling.
  23. Nothing of what you wrote contradicts what I have described. My impression is that what departs from your opinion must fundamentally be wrong. If anyone is convinced of what he says, I don't see why he can't make that claim. If he is wrong, well, he will correct himself.
  24. I'm afraid my response to your comment will not be in the tone you might be hoping for. It will not be the kind of exchange two may share over a glass of well-aged wine, with an aristocratic backdrop consisting of bookshelves filled to the brim with glorious, detailed encyclopedias and the biographies of many great scientists of the past and present, globes showing every minutiae of Earth's topography, nor wallpaper consisting of every known constellation with various means of referencing their location in the sky. Instead, we will take to the street to deal with the problems that have just wandered from your brain into the public consciousness, as these are dangerously misinformed and recklessly formed thoughts indeed. I have numbered each separate claim for simplicity and reference. I must warn the more spiritually biased who visit here that we all should do our own research to properly grasp the concepts being discussed, before making judgment of others, and especially before making wild predictions. This will absolutely come off as confrontational, as I am challenging every single claim made here by this individual: [1]A connection which you alone can see, but is unseen by others, and is based on your opinion as indicated by "imo" is entirely irrational. [a.]Using the power of abstract interpretation to cut through the unusual vocabulary and grammatical structure you've used here, is it correct to surmise that you are calling at least some portion of the last few years of sunspots "excessive"? Or, is it so that you are basing a forecast of Earth's weather on a prediction of a La Ni帽a event, which itself is based on which hemisphere of the Sun has the most sunspots? Do you not realize that sunspots are only Earth-facing for a relatively short period of time, such as around 3-5 days? What is the mechanism of action between an Earth-facing sunspot, and Earth's atmosphere, in your opinion? Does your opinion differ from the objectiveness of reality? Do you know what sunspots are? Lastly, do you not understand that the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun are near-equally exposed to Earth, and that your idea of a SC24 sunspot(southern solar hemisphere) having more influence on Earth's southern hemisphere, or the opposite in SC25 sunspots(northern solar hemisphere) having more influence on Earth's northern hemisphere, is an elementary error on your part? The error being that the hemisphere of Earth most exposed to the sun is dependent on Earth's seasons, or the time of the year - which is known to shift over a relatively long time scale - such as Winter and Summer? Specifically, we are most exposed to the solar northern hemisphere in September and solar southern hemisphere in March. (source: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/science/solar-rotation.html ) [b.]This is hardly your opinion. This is what it looks like for a new solar cycle to begin; more sunspots will form on the opposite hemisphere... more sunspots will appear, period. [2]This is easily disproven. The burden of proof is on you, however, so I will leave the busywork of finding temperature anomaly records to you, as they will disprove a connection between solar activity and temperatures in the Pacific region, anyways. [3]Refer to earlier explanation of exposure to the sun's two hemispheres. Sunspots do not have an effect on Ni帽o 3.4. They do not influence weather on Earth in as great of a way as you are imagining they do. [4]Are you referring to the 10% chance of negative Ni帽o values as forecasted by NOAA? You seem to be betting all-in on such low odds... Remember, El Ni帽os and La Ni帽as are not determined by small periods of warming or cooling, but by multiple three-month intervals of SST warming/cooling, averaged out. You seem to not understand this. [a.]Temperatures in many places throughout Earth always have cold and warm seasons, where temps below 0潞C are not uncommon; as you near the equator of the planet, however, it becomes less and less common for such extreme temperature swings, due to more consistent amounts of daylight that is received. For instance, if you were to live right on the equator of Earth, you'd have 12h of daytime and 12h of nighttime regardless of the time of year. If you were a few miles north of the equator, you'd have a few more minutes of daytime in the summer and a few less minutes of daytime in the winter. This scales with distance to Equator, where at the poles, periods of constant daylight and constant nighttime occur at varying times of the year. Elementary lesson in "what is a season?" aside, you are grossly overestimating the change in climate due to La Ni帽a - especially in the early onset. If you are suggesting that the entire planet will turn into an ice cube simply due to La Ni帽a, then I am aghast. Surely, this is not what you meant, and I'm just misinterpreting your language. The places that have historically and commonly fallen below 0潞C during winter will continue to be cold during periods of the year where it is likely to be cold. Meanwhile, tropical climates will continue to be tropical and mostly unaffected by these events. Your choice of wording here seems to be calculated, so as to invoke fear from the less informed, and this is a stance in science which does not respect reality, and spreads misinformation for the sake of chaos. Hence, it is called pseudo-science.(Really, it's just fear mongering) [5]Earlier in your post, you mentioned some figures: But you say, "There goes NOAA's forecast" as though you just blew the roof off of their shindig. In actuality, you made an even less determinate forecast of the Ni帽o 3.4 index than NOAA. You are dismissing their predictions based on quite literally their own least-probable outcome prediction. Remember, 30% is higher than 10%. There is a reason those figures were both given - these are degrees of certainty. Look at it conversely; It is 90% uncertain if a La Ni帽a state will occur, and 70% uncertain if a El Ni帽o state will occur. Measurements will be taken and real determinations can be made after the fact, but if you want to make your own predictions, do not make them in spite of the data you are using as a reference. [6] While this is an accurate observation, it does not have a overruling effect on the rest of the planet's climate. It is also not your opinion; you are stating this as a derived and objective fact. This is an assertion of your belief of what is true and real - an argument and a declaration besides oneself. An opinion is something you project personal value onto. Opinions don't have much of a place in this discussion. [7]Average temperatures are based on much more data than "several years" of observation. It is more than likely wildly inaccurate, and furthermore is irrational to base average temperatures, as well as concurrent deviation from the supposed averages, on your limited data set. It would be like if we were to have only been watching the sun for the last eleven years, and thus believed the solar cycle lasts eleven years. While true, it is unverifiable with such a limited data set. It should also be noted that average temperatures are just that - adding the numbers together, and dividing by the quantity of data points. There should always be a margin of error, and you shouldn't expect the actual temperature on a given day to be precisely average all the time. [8]Isolating your observations arbitrarily, and applying derived conclusions to the rest of the planet's climate and atmosphere, is entirely irrational. There is so much going on with our planet's atmosphere, that purposefully oversimplifying meteorology, and being so reductive of the complexity of various fields of science to come to frivolous and fear-mongering conclusions... it is truly worrying that you spend your time this way. But, I'm one to talk. I spent a lot of time writing this response, and I know it will either be ill-received, or result in an even greater effort from you to push some horrible and tremendously false narrative here. If you do care to read it, and somehow don't get your feelings hurt(as most people seem to bring personal feelings into any discussion, scientific or otherwise), then please, take the extra step to simply re-evaluate before publishing your ideas.
  25. We will likely see the return of the Megadrought to North America and South America due to more frequent Nina stages. Europe, on the other hand, will see severe dry summers and more severe and snowy winters due to the cooling of the Atlantic Ocean.
  26. Thinking of your suggestion, we decided to actually add it and don't wait for another 10 years 馃槈. But instead of remembering each day what the number of the past day was we decided to give it a little 'trend' icon indicating if the number of spotless days is shrinking or not.The trend icon is updated daily based on the data of one year but the month before (not really a point to compare it with previous day wouldn't it). The number of days in this year has now a percentage so it's easier to know if that number is a lot or not.
  27. I am not sure if I can make it more simple but will give it a go: in the article we talked about the coronal mass ejection which is basically a massive cloud of solar plasma. These clouds can be very big and wide but also very narrow or small so to speak. The location on the Sun where the plasma cloud is being launched from is very important when it comes to if it is directed towards Earth or not. The coronal mass ejection from the M1.1 solar flare was very small and slow. Just a little solar puff. Due to the location on the Sun where it was launched from this little plasma cloud has no chance to reach us as the eruption took place at the solar limb as seen from Earth. We want sunspot regions near the center of the earth-facing solar disk or just right of this sweet spot from our planet's point of view... those have the greatest chance to be earth-directed. However, if we are talking about the light or radiation emitted by a solar flare, this radiation did arrive at Earth. GOES registered the flare and as you can imagine with a light bulb, this light from the flare is being emitted in all directions. This radiation did cause a minor R1 radio blackout on the earth-facing side of the Sun. Understanding the difference between the radiation emitted by a solar flare and the resulting coronal mass ejection is key here.
  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.