Strange Doings on the Sun(online.wsj.com)
online.wsj.com
Strange Doings on the Sun
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304672404579183940409194498
8 comments
I hope this is some masochistic exercise forced on young astronomers to make them appreciate what their forbears had to do before they're let loose on the computers.
I'm also puzzled as to why the date is logged as 11 December, since it's the 11th of November.
I'm also puzzled as to why the date is logged as 11 December, since it's the 11th of November.
It looks like they've been doing it this way since 1917: ftp://howard.astro.ucla.edu/pub/obs/drawings/
Some information on the process: http://obs.astro.ucla.edu/150_draw.html
That doesn't in itself explain why they wouldn't be generating these diagrams automatically nowadays. Perhaps nobody's written a sunspot-finding computer vision algorithm that consistently produces the results they want, in a format vaguely compatible with the traditional drawings?
Some information on the process: http://obs.astro.ucla.edu/150_draw.html
That doesn't in itself explain why they wouldn't be generating these diagrams automatically nowadays. Perhaps nobody's written a sunspot-finding computer vision algorithm that consistently produces the results they want, in a format vaguely compatible with the traditional drawings?
Edit: I found this interesting piece which details how Steve Padilla has been doing the drawings for 40 years!
http://www.latimes.com/local/columnone/la-me-c1-mt-wilson-su...
He says: he likes the tradition, this convergence of science and art.
"The value," he says, "is not so much in the individual achievement but in maintaining the daily record."
However, the telescope's annual budget of $250,000, cobbled together with grants from NASA and the National Science Foundation, runs out in the spring, and Ulrich says odds of getting more money from NASA are long.
Edit - previous speculation I wrote: Hmmm.. maybe Steve Padilla wrote it as 12-11-2013 (like we write it in South America) instead of 11-12-2013 like in the U.S. ?
http://www.latimes.com/local/columnone/la-me-c1-mt-wilson-su...
He says: he likes the tradition, this convergence of science and art.
"The value," he says, "is not so much in the individual achievement but in maintaining the daily record."
However, the telescope's annual budget of $250,000, cobbled together with grants from NASA and the National Science Foundation, runs out in the spring, and Ulrich says odds of getting more money from NASA are long.
Edit - previous speculation I wrote: Hmmm.. maybe Steve Padilla wrote it as 12-11-2013 (like we write it in South America) instead of 11-12-2013 like in the U.S. ?
For more context, I recommend looking at the two graphs here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot#Variation
In particular, the Maunder minimum was a period of very low solar activity in the 17th century which contributed to the Little Ice Age. The drop in temperature impacted agricultural yields around the globe. [1]
That said, my professor would say that it's too early to infer much from this cycle's low sunspot number. The solar dynamo is very unpredictable in general, and quite possibly chaotic. Next cycle could be above average and that wouldn't shock anybody in solar physics.
[1] For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_Dynasty#Economic_breakdow...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot#Variation
In particular, the Maunder minimum was a period of very low solar activity in the 17th century which contributed to the Little Ice Age. The drop in temperature impacted agricultural yields around the globe. [1]
That said, my professor would say that it's too early to infer much from this cycle's low sunspot number. The solar dynamo is very unpredictable in general, and quite possibly chaotic. Next cycle could be above average and that wouldn't shock anybody in solar physics.
[1] For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_Dynasty#Economic_breakdow...
I do wonder having recently read about a comet with multiple tails that this is related. http://www.nasa.gov/press/2013/november/nasas-hubble-sees-as...
Though the record of sun sunspots is not a long record and with that this could very well be normal only outside the sample range we currently have and goes against all patterns currently cleaned.
Also in a probably unrelated pattern, the northern hemisphere had fewer hurricanes than normal this season.
One aspect that does add to my curiosity is that the northern pole has moved and the southern one has not, I was unaware that magnetic poles moved independantly - though no mention of monopoles. So I'm somewhat curious too this and hopefully somebody will enlighten.
Though the record of sun sunspots is not a long record and with that this could very well be normal only outside the sample range we currently have and goes against all patterns currently cleaned.
Also in a probably unrelated pattern, the northern hemisphere had fewer hurricanes than normal this season.
One aspect that does add to my curiosity is that the northern pole has moved and the southern one has not, I was unaware that magnetic poles moved independantly - though no mention of monopoles. So I'm somewhat curious too this and hopefully somebody will enlighten.
Technically that is an asteroid with a comet-like tail. The main difference is where it comes from and the type of material it's made out of.
I'm sorry but roughly 200 years of data is not nearly enough to begin to predict any sort of cycles the 4.5 billion year old Sun has.
The article mentions 11 year cycles between polar changes... since it hasn't happened this year, this article is based around 19 data points... That's the last 19 data points of the available 409,090,909 11-year increments...
The article mentions 11 year cycles between polar changes... since it hasn't happened this year, this article is based around 19 data points... That's the last 19 data points of the available 409,090,909 11-year increments...
Science doesn't work like that. We've only observed a tiny proportion of the Moon's orbits around the Earth, but we can still predict an eclipse of the Sun and we know that it's not going to crash into the Earth tomorrow.
Why not learn a bit about the subject? Stars really are fascinating!
Why not learn a bit about the subject? Stars really are fascinating!
I think your example is not a good one and the premise you meant to have it support is flawed.
Calculating the orbit of an object in space is well understood and several orders of magnitude less complicated than the relatively poorly understood processes that occur in the sun.
As the person you replied to said, it is hubris to think that after a few hundred years of studying a 4 billion year old dynamic object that we can make such precise predictions about it. The fact that scientists seem to be baffled by the sun's current behavior should make this point obvious.
Calculating the orbit of an object in space is well understood and several orders of magnitude less complicated than the relatively poorly understood processes that occur in the sun.
As the person you replied to said, it is hubris to think that after a few hundred years of studying a 4 billion year old dynamic object that we can make such precise predictions about it. The fact that scientists seem to be baffled by the sun's current behavior should make this point obvious.
> it is hubris to think that after a few hundred years of studying a 4 billion year old dynamic object
I'm afraid you missed my point: the age of the object is irrelevant. That's why I was talking about the Moon which is also billions of years old.
We don't predict how things will behave, simply based on a number of observations and then extrapolating (well, not if we have any choice). Instead we try to understand the underlying physical principles that cause the behaviour in the first place and make predictions based on that.
The hubris is from you assuming you have a better understanding of the state of knowledge of the Sun than the people who actually study it. They know far better than you what we do and do not know.
I'm afraid you missed my point: the age of the object is irrelevant. That's why I was talking about the Moon which is also billions of years old.
We don't predict how things will behave, simply based on a number of observations and then extrapolating (well, not if we have any choice). Instead we try to understand the underlying physical principles that cause the behaviour in the first place and make predictions based on that.
The hubris is from you assuming you have a better understanding of the state of knowledge of the Sun than the people who actually study it. They know far better than you what we do and do not know.
> The fact that scientists seem to be baffled
You might be reading more into science reporting than you should. 'Hm, that's odd' is reported as 'baffled'.
People that actually work in the field do not believe they know it all as you suggest.
You might be reading more into science reporting than you should. 'Hm, that's odd' is reported as 'baffled'.
People that actually work in the field do not believe they know it all as you suggest.
I think you may have missed my point. The comment I was replying to essentially said, "If we can predict A with little information then we can predict B with little information". My point was that this is not necessarily true and certainly not true in this instance. After all, scientists are frequently wrong about sunspot activity predictions and rarely wrong about where the moon will be at any particular time of the day / year.
The comment I responded to also had a needlessly condescending tone to the OP of "Science doesn't work like that...Why not learn a bit about the subject?" which I also objected to.
The comment I responded to also had a needlessly condescending tone to the OP of "Science doesn't work like that...Why not learn a bit about the subject?" which I also objected to.
Given the tools we have to detect the sun's 'doings' today are magnanimously more sophisticated than 200 years ago, could it be that 200 years ago several fluctuations were missed because the overall balance still remained throughout the cycles?
>"Sunspots—often broader in diameter than Earth—mark areas of intense magnetic force that brew disruptive solar storms."
>"...diameter than Earth..."
Diameter larger than earth?
Did they stop editing the wall street journal?
Since most of our GPS and cellular devices have been developed and deployed during a period of unusually weak solar electromagnetic activity, I've been wondering and worrying about how big of a disaster is waiting to happen when the sun returns to "normal."
That would seem to fly in the face of what the article said, specifically the 2003 solar storm and this:
"Several solar scientists speculated that the sun may be returning to a more relaxed state after an era of unusually high activity that started in the 1940s."
Would you mind elaborating on the weak period of solar activity?
"Several solar scientists speculated that the sun may be returning to a more relaxed state after an era of unusually high activity that started in the 1940s."
Would you mind elaborating on the weak period of solar activity?
Even if GPS stopped working, given some time we could work around it. There'd be some issues in the short term, but GPS is used because it is easier than inertial navigation systems, (thankfully) not because it's the only choice.
It's not just easier, GPS is vastly more reliable and accurate than almost any other method of navigation.
So much so that it's starting to be relied on in many industries. For example, airplanes are starting to move away from a radar based method of air traffic control to a GPS based system. Every airplane will simply continuously transmit its GPS coordinates as part of its transponder message. From this you can create a highly accurate map of where every plane is, except much more accurate than with radar.
So much so that it's starting to be relied on in many industries. For example, airplanes are starting to move away from a radar based method of air traffic control to a GPS based system. Every airplane will simply continuously transmit its GPS coordinates as part of its transponder message. From this you can create a highly accurate map of where every plane is, except much more accurate than with radar.
Thanks, radar air traffic control is another good example. The world would not end without GPS, it would just make things harder :)
Ho-ly shit, the comments. It's almost like it was linked from Drudge or Fox News.
From the comments: "No mention of the four comets currently in the Solar System. I'm no genius, but don't you think four electromagnetic balls of energy might have an effect on the Sun's magnetic field."
(In case anyone here isn't aware, comets are basically big balls of ice, not "electromagnetic balls of energy")
This comment makes me think that there is remaining ground to be covered in the "online commenting" field. Youtube comments, for all they are made fun of, do a decent job of allowing video authors to respond to particularly inane or confused comments and provide clarification. Those comments are typically then stuck to the top of the comment section, allowing other commenters to see the correction.
Perhaps a commenting system that allows scientific educators of various sorts to single out comments and write highly visible responses to them could 1) improve the state of online commenting, 2) increase scientific literacy among the general public.
(In case anyone here isn't aware, comets are basically big balls of ice, not "electromagnetic balls of energy")
This comment makes me think that there is remaining ground to be covered in the "online commenting" field. Youtube comments, for all they are made fun of, do a decent job of allowing video authors to respond to particularly inane or confused comments and provide clarification. Those comments are typically then stuck to the top of the comment section, allowing other commenters to see the correction.
Perhaps a commenting system that allows scientific educators of various sorts to single out comments and write highly visible responses to them could 1) improve the state of online commenting, 2) increase scientific literacy among the general public.
I thought that was sarcasm. I went to wsj to see the context but couldn't find the comment.
Anyway, here are pictures of the aforementioned comets: http://www.universetoday.com/105834/weekend-comet-bonanza/#i...
Anyway, here are pictures of the aforementioned comets: http://www.universetoday.com/105834/weekend-comet-bonanza/#i...
I would donate to a crowd-funded thing that did that.
A scientific rapid response unit - finding and correcting errors in online comments, with links back to a blog that has a nice easy to understand article about the subject, with clear diagrams and examples.
A scientific rapid response unit - finding and correcting errors in online comments, with links back to a blog that has a nice easy to understand article about the subject, with clear diagrams and examples.
Small correction, but I can't resist: Comets, like most matter, are electronically balanced electromagnetic energy balls, i.e. have no net charge* but plenty of charges. ;)
* Of course they can pick up a charge from, e.g. collecting solar wind... I'm not an astrophysicist so I can't say how big it would be.
* Of course they can pick up a charge from, e.g. collecting solar wind... I'm not an astrophysicist so I can't say how big it would be.
Ah, technically correct... the best kind of correct.
I used to think newspaper comment systems were going to create more informed citizenry and that everyone would engage in Adult Discussions of Serious Issues. I tirelessly evangelized the gospel of reader participation at every opportunity.
I was catastrophically wrong. Most people are idiots, and idiots like to travel in packs. Sorry about that.
I was catastrophically wrong. Most people are idiots, and idiots like to travel in packs. Sorry about that.
Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory
The WSJ comment community is a) right wing and b) terminally stupid. I am not trying to suggest that the two are equivalent, but whenever there's a story like this 80% of the comments consist of dismissing global warming as a hoax.
You need something to counter the kinds of comments you find on Huffington Post or Democratic Underground!
Indeed the orioginal article comments do have a somewhat colourful selection from the walks of human life. Like yourself I like to read the comments and the linked article original comments before dipping in, but in this case nothing was easily added to the conversation, though I saw no spam or sdrawkcab level posts.
And they put them on the web. If you want to see "puzzling" lack of sunspot activity, here it is:
http://obs.astro.ucla.edu/cur_drw.html