Kaimbridge Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 On the Solar activity link for 2017-Jan-16, it lists two B-class flares for the day, a B1.3 @01:44 and a B1.4 @18:23, both of which match SWPCʼs Solar Events page for Jan 16. However, while if you hover over 01:44 on that dayʼs flare graph, it shows B1.31, when you hover over 18:23, it gives a B1.99, both of which match the values for the time slots on the 1-minute X-ray flux text page for Jan 16! When you look at the graph, it is obvious that B1.99 is the correct value: Why the discrepancy? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vancanneyt Sander Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 Hi @Kaimbridge Looks like you caught NOAA on a mistake . It isn't the first time NOAA classifies flares with faulty strength, we've done multiple corrections in the past for the M1+ solar flares where there was difference in the GOES data and the SWPC logs and those where corrected by us in our databases to make sure we have the correct values. We have now edited the flare so it will display correctly, thx for reporting! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimbridge Posted January 20, 2017 Author Share Posted January 20, 2017 Thatʼs what I figured. P=) On a related note, why do they tend to round flare/flux levels down—e.g., “C3.28” ➜ “C3.2”, “X1.79” ➜ “X1.7” ➜ “X1”—rather than to the nearest (in these examples, it should be “C3.3” and “X1.8” ➜ “X2”)? This doesnʼt seem to be an occasional error, but intended policy: Is there a valid reason for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vancanneyt Sander Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 It's a good question that we also don't have an answer for. SWPC apparently has an policy to round flares always off to the lower value. In normal math an X1.99 would be X2 but SWPC will always say it was a X1.9. Maybe they do this intentionally to prevent that an M9.97 would be classified as an X1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimbridge Posted April 28, 2017 Author Share Posted April 28, 2017 Is there a reason that the largest flare of the day is maxed as B4.5 at 17:48 (rather than B4.9 or B4.8, as the chart shows it should be at that time?), and not B5.0 or B4.9 at 17:50 as appears to be the case? Or is this another “NOAA mistake”? ? ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vancanneyt Sander Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 NOAA often rounds off solar flares like M3.38 as M3.3 but this looks like it's an error of NOAA that marked the peak a bit too early, guess that NOAA had a rough day PS.: that screenshot looks like our site, but yet the color scheme is different ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimbridge Posted April 30, 2017 Author Share Posted April 30, 2017 23 hours ago, Vancanneyt Sander said: PS.: that screenshot looks like our site, but yet the color scheme is different Thatʼs because it is your site ?—I took three screenshots and combined the relevant parts into one concise shot (flipping the bottom line of the 17:50 flare bubble)! ? As for the color scheme, yes, I use the inverse white on black. as it is easier on the eyes. ? BTW, by including the full flare spectrum up to the unthinkable X100, you eliminated the “Reset Zoom” getting in the way of the flare bubbles! ? A suggestion: Why not add dim colors to the C, B and A chart ranges, too—say, something like light aqua blue (#8FFFFF) for Cs, light lime green (#B0FF50) for Bs and light gray (#D2D2D2) for As—or, at the very least, darken the B and C boundary lines? ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcel de Bont Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 Op 2017-4-28 om 05:32, Kaimbridge zei: Is there a reason that the largest flare of the day is maxed as B4.5 at 17:48 (rather than B4.9 or B4.8, as the chart shows it should be at that time?), and not B5.0 or B4.9 at 17:50 as appears to be the case? Or is this another “NOAA mistake”? I looked at the events file of April 26 and it is not a mistake. The thing is, for some reason they took the peak value as measured by GOES 13 for that event, instead of GOES 15. The X-ray data in the archive is only the data from the primary satellite which is GOES 15 right now. Why they took the data from GOES 13 while GOES 15 was up and running at the time of the event is a mystery for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimbridge Posted December 8, 2017 Author Share Posted December 8, 2017 (edited) Solar flares Region Start Maximum End 2690 B1.0 03:20 03:23 03:28 Well, looks like they decided to use the secondary data: Quote ftp://ftp.swpc.noaa.gov/pub/lists/xray/20171207_Gp_xr_1m.txt > 2017 12 07 0322 58094 12120 8.52e-09 8.60e-08 > 2017 12 07 0323 58094 12180 1.05e-08 8.84e-08 > 2017 12 07 0324 58094 12240 1.04e-08 9.00e-08 > 2017 12 07 0325 58094 12300 1.03e-08 8.95e-08 Quote ftp://ftp.swpc.noaa.gov/pub/lists/xray/20171207_Gs_xr_1m.txt > 2017 12 07 0322 58094 12120 1.58e-08 8.83e-08 > 2017 12 07 0323 58094 12180 1.56e-08 1.00e-07 > 2017 12 07 0324 58094 12240 1.61e-08 9.49e-08 > 2017 12 07 0325 58094 12300 1.78e-08 9.97e-08 Edited December 8, 2017 by Kaimbridge Formatting (Any way to edit in source code mode?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vancanneyt Sander Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 We've seen this before too and don't really understand why NOAA suddenly uses secondary data instead of their primary source. Normally if there are troubles with primary data, it is announced that they would switch to secondary but when solar flare strengths are added we'll get situations like this. Sometimes NOAA isn't really correct . PS.: Source mode is not available for safety reasons (if a spammer gets through, it could do plenty of things wrong with html injection ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimbridge Posted December 10, 2017 Author Share Posted December 10, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Vancanneyt Sander said: PS.: Source mode is not available for safety reasons (if a spammer gets through, it could do plenty of things wrong with html injection ) Well, canʼt you just allow the tags that are used above (I donʼt mean total source code, just the ones to be able to manually do the functions above: The automatic WYSIWYG posting can be difficult to edit/delete...such as when I pasted the solar flare quote below the image above a second time and then tried to delete it—the contents deleted, but not the table it posted it in, itself)? BTW, how come no archives for the past two days—is that your doing or NOAAʼs (I know their ftp server seems to be down)? Edited December 10, 2017 by Kaimbridge Added archive question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vancanneyt Sander Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 23 uren geleden, Kaimbridge zei: Well, canʼt you just allow the tags that are used above In the software we use html-tag limitation is not available, the creator found that the most users have enough with a WYSIWYG editor. So out of safety, we don't enable it by default. 23 uren geleden, Kaimbridge zei: BTW, how come no archives for the past two days—is that your doing or NOAAʼs (I know their ftp server seems to be down)? Archive of the last few days is available. Due note that after midnight not all options are available but are added during the night when NOAA updates their stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimbridge Posted December 11, 2017 Author Share Posted December 11, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Vancanneyt Sander said: Archive of the last few days is available. Due note that after midnight not all options are available but are added during the night when NOAA updates their stuff. Yeah, the Dec.9 archive showed up sometime yesterday afternoon (EST)...but the Dec.8 archive is still missing. P=| Okay, it is there now (did you just do something, or was it only coincidence? P=). Edited December 11, 2017 by Kaimbridge Updated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vancanneyt Sander Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 You had it right al along I just overlooked it 😱. We've added the missing data last night (UTC+1) so the archive is complete again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimbridge Posted January 26, 2019 Author Share Posted January 26, 2019 Well, SWPC appears at it again: For the past three days they have been graphing GOES‐15 data, but quoting GOES‐14 flare values (yesterday—Fri.25th—they listed the peak flare as B1.2 @ 2222z, which was GOES‐14...GOES‐15 peaked then at A7.1, as your moving “bubble cloud” tracer graph properly listed—though the blackline flare data is GOES‐14ʼs B1.2! So, if it continues today, the 1322z flare will rightfully show “C5.02” (GOES‐15) with the “bubble cloud”, but the blackline of the flare will give GOES‐14ʼs “C4.73”! P=/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vancanneyt Sander Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 Yes, we've noticed this too and made a fix to prevent this. Hopefully some new flares to see if it's all ok now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimbridge Posted January 27, 2019 Author Share Posted January 27, 2019 7 hours ago, Vancanneyt Sander said: Yes, we've noticed this too and made a fix to prevent this. Hopefully some new flares to see if it's all ok now Yup, I see the corrected Saturday values (though Wed-Fri is still jumbled, too! P=| ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimbridge Posted April 15, 2019 Author Share Posted April 15, 2019 Woop, SWPC appears to be using the GOES-14 data again! P=( X-Ray Archive—Sunday, 14 April 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theartist Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 (edited) The GOES 15 X-ray flux sensor may have had an adjustment 'fix' applied in the last 24 hours, for now it is tracking the GOES 14 sensor quite well (at these current low flux levels). Previously, Rubén Vázquez and I were discussing an apparent problem with the sensor over in the thread titled, "Recent Cycle #25 Sunspot" in the "Solar activity" forum. Edited April 19, 2019 by theartist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.2ac1710914b62fec853f0764b4c5a1ef.jpg){kind=avatar}
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now