WildWill

Howdy KW, Awesome time-lapse! Thank you very much for sharing this! Will

Howdy All Y'all! NASA recently released this video clip. It's all 133 days compressed into two minutes! It's pretty cool, check it out All y'all have ya a good one! Will Howdy Again, but here is another video from NASA... This is a 25 year Timelapse of LASCO C3. check it out! This actually came out for SOHO's 25th birthday a couple of years ago... have ya a good one! Will

Howdy, Thanks for weighing in on this. To me it kinda looked like there possibly could be some "burn-in" on the sensor there . . I am pleased you don't think it an artifact - speaks well for he future of the imaging system. I like them a lot! Thank ya! Have ya a great night! Will

In looking at the sun using a telescope and a Hydrogen alpha filter, some features on the sun appear in 3D. This is particularly true of filaments as you move away from center sun towards the limbs. This happens because of the angle… I managed to catch a filament eruption on Saturday on the East limb. You can see some ejecta below the larger prominence. Keep in mind the view here is mirrored horizontally - so East is East and West is West ;-). Reversed from what you usually see. You can also see a couple of filaments just above and to the left of the prominence. There are also a couple of spots at the bottom. This filament eruption was from Sunday. I didn’t take any pics on Saturday unfortunately…. If you want to see the 3D effects that I can see in H-a, check out the Gallery here on SWL, in particular: And here: Both of these guys do awesome work! You can really see the 3D in a lot of features. Enjoy. Will

Howdy, I would add a couple of notes The 25% chance gets adjusted for the current configuration of the group and the size of the group (the whole group). I'm sure flux factors into it. I do not know if the size of the "delta" is taken into consideration. I couldn't find statistics on that. There are statistics related to the largest spot in the group. This falls under the "configuration" and is part of the classification. Here again, while I found statistics, I do not know if this is taken into consideration when determining/adjusting probabilities. Additionally, it is worth noting that almost all X flares occur in groups - like in Jan when we had 3 in a week. According to the statistics/historical record. So the probability should go up after an X flare occurs in isolated (first in a while). This doesn't take into account a group which is "falling apart" - just stochastically - statistical probably goes up. I do not know if they adjust probabilities in their predictions because an X flare has already occurred. I suppose that's a question for SWPC. Hope this helps Will 😉

According to the statistics (from the papers 3g posted and one of Scott's papers) BGD sunspot groups produce X flares 23% of the time. They may adjust the probability based on flux, but whenever there is a BGD group there is almost a 1 on 4 chance... Hope this helps. Will

I think the disconnect is that the statistics show more X flares and M flares from B than BG groups. This doesn't translate to the probabilities. There are significantly more B sunspot groups than BG. For example, there may have been 1000 Beta groups during that time and 7 produced an X flare. That means 7 in 1000 produced an X flare. During the same period, let's say there were 100 BG sunspot groups that produced 4 X flares. So 4 in 100 produced an X flare. So the probability of an X flare happening in a B group is less than. 1 in 100. While the probability from a BG group is 1 in 25. Thus any given BG group is about six times more likely to produce an X flare than a B sunspot group. Hope this helps. Will

I’m afraid this is another area where we may just have to agree to disagree. To me, it looked like a small delta did form as noted above. If you look now, while it has deteriorated a bit, I still see a really small delta there… look at the two side by side tiny spots at the bottom of that little group. Didn’t this AR, with its tiny little delta just kick out an X flare? I don’t think size matters here… I could be wrong, but in this case, I don’t think so. Ive seen a number of “large deltas” over the last year which have done nothing. Isn’t this the same location as the three X flares a month ago? Small deltas then too I believe. It is the magnetic intensity and shear that are most important in my view. I think that a lot of that stuff is going on underneath the group- so it’s very hard to tell until it kicks out an X flare and in this instance I do not believe size matters like it does with many other things… I just hope it keeps it up! All Y’all Have Ya A Good Un… Will Howdy, I wouldn’t worry too much, it did the same thing last time around. Opened up and closed up a few hours later with a little different shape. I think there is obviously a lot of magnetic energy twisted up in there. Hopefully, we’ll see it expend some more of that energy with another nice reconnect! Cheers. Will

Nice X flare an hour ago! Number 4 of the year. In my reading this week, I think from one of Scott’s papers, I read that X flares usually happen in spades… like at the beginning of the year when we had 3 X class flares in a week! Let’s hope… In the meantime. - way to go 3217! Off to a nice start! Keep on kickin it! Cheers Will

I must not have communicated my thoughts properly. Because it’s obvious that you didn’t understand my assertions. You did get one right - it’s not a delta unless they have merged to where a spot and it’s penumbra have enclosed, engulfed, surrounded, whatever synonym ya like here…, another spot of opposite polarity and the center of the spots must be within 2 degrees of each other. Im gonna leave it there as we are not going to agree on this. That’s ok, if everyone agreed, it would be awfully boring around here. But, at some point ya gotta say - we ain’t gonna agree and that’s it! I don’t see much point in beating a dead horse - it ain’t gonna get the field plowed… Im there! Have ya a great day (and I mean that… have ya a great day). I’m done. Will

That’s what I was thinking. I can post some other sources, but the first one is the help and FAQ on “Space Weather Live”. You will find the same definitions there and the three ways in which delays form. There is also a nice section in the help on Daystarfilters.com. Nice pictures too. Ive was hoping for a professional to consult on some of the “deltas” shown in the last six months, but I learned that even the experts don’t always agree - they may agree on paper, but when it comes to pictures, they see different things - hence, art form.

I think we’ll end up having to agree to disagree on this one. According to my “textbooks”, deltas form three ways: 1 - They can pop up already formed. A pair of spots with opposite polarity pop up to the surface within a single penumbra. 2 - A spot of opposite polarity can form within the penumbra of a spot of opposite polarity. 3 - Two spots can be “pushed together” until one is absorbed into the penumbra of the other. This doesn’t mean that just because two spots are being pushed together so that their penumbras touch that you have a delta. They must be within 2* (two degrees, I’ve also seen 2 1/2 degrees used) of each other and you cannot draw a simple line between polarities - simple line as defined previously. Same definition of “simple line” as is used to distinguish a beta from beta-gamma. You’ve asserted that number 3 above is the only way in which deltas can form. I do not agree. Hope this helps! Will PS “kickin it” refers to flaring/flux… PPS It is a really good, clear example that she posted in my view. I think people get too wrapped up in the colorized magnetograms. If’n ya are gonna place that much weight on them, at least download the quality data for your analysis. As @mozy learned from the SDO project team is that the images you see on the website are “not scientific quality data”. Not ready for prime time. Well, the earth weatherman was wrong again! You’d think they would’ve figured this simple system out by now… I’ve got clear skies out this morning - gotta go, gotta go! Y’all have fun! I will!

Howdy PB and All Y’all! To me and my untrained inexperienced eyes, I see two totally different situations here. In 3217, at the time of your posting, I don’t see a delta. I see two spots getting pushed together. I can see very clearly that they both have their own penumbras. I can draw a nice simple line between the polarities. I also disagree with your assertion that all spots have their own penumbra. I’ve seen lots of spots with no penumbra (not necessarily deltas). The definition I have read over and over again is “two or more spots of different polarity sharing a single penumbra”. That’s what makes it a delta - it is inside the penumbra of another spot of different polarity. Whereas in the example that @arjemma posted, we see a nice round penumbra enclosing three spots, the delta is clear - at least to me. Your “example” reminds me of AR13089, from the end of August, everyone called it a big delta- but I couldn’t see it. I went back and reviewed the first page of this thread and I still believe that AR13089 didn’t have a delta at that time. I believe it did develop deltas as it went around the limb a week later. The overlays that you like to like to use are not quite the tool you make it out to be. Solar astronomers have been classifying delta spots for some time before the advent of colorized magnetograms and computer graphics period. I understand that the Air Force, where much of the analysis originates, still follows the same process and manual for identifying deltas and classifying spots that they did 30 years ago. Long before SOHO, SDO or serious computing power as compared to today. The other thing about those overlays is that the images were taken with different imaging systems for different purposes. I believe the Intensitygram (white light) is labeled “flattened”. I would guess to reduce spherical aberration. The colorized magnetogram is never going to line up exactly with the Intensitygram except at center sun. The farther you move from the center of the sun, the less they are going to align exactly. Another BIG consideration with the colorized magnetogram is that it is not necessarily showing you the “same things” in terms of features. The colorized magnetogram is gonna pick up on any ionized plasma - it doesn’t necessarily have to be on the photosphere. It can be a plume or filament which is in the chromosphere. I took me a while to realize this. I noticed arcs on magnetically active plasma and couldn’t figure out what (where) they were on the Intensitygram. Then one day staring at filaments on the sun, it hit me - those features on the magnetogram are not on the surface. I’ll iterate, the example posted by @arjemma appears to be a “textbook” example, albeit small, of a delta spot - according to all the textbooks/sources I’ve been able to find. The other thing I look at if it’s not clear to me is what the AR is doing. If it’s all quiet - then it doesn’t really matter to me whether it’s really a “delta” or not - cause it don’t matter a lick ta me if’n it ain’t doin nuthin! I would refer you to the discussion around AR13089 at the beginning of this thread again. I’ve an image three where I have drawn a “simple” line (continuous and piecewise differentiable) between the spots. Just because they are getting pushed together does not make a delta. That is one way which deltas can form according to what I’ve read, but it’s not a delta until one is absorbed by the others penumbra. The colorized magnetograms are really cool, but ya gotta sit back and also consider their limitations. I think once you move 60* from the meridian, it loses a great deal of weight in my view because of the angle. At 60*, you’re looking through a whole lot of chromosphere before you get to the “surface” (photosphere). This can cause magnetized plasma in the chromosphere to appear on the surface tens of thousands of miles from the features for the photosphere which appear right next to it… I hope that makes sense to y’all. I started this thread back in August, so that I could learn more about identifying deltas. The most significant thing I’ve learned since then about identifying deltas is that it is an art form. We very seldom see the “classic textbook” delta. So, it’s not always easy nor will everyone - including seasoned experts - always agree. I’ve read and reviewed everything I could find about classifying deltas in the last six months or so. Still, it is an art form and I am an analytical kinda guy… We can agree to disagree, but I don’t see the delta in your image (which I think we agree upon). And as I pointed out earlier in my post, my understanding is that even seasoned “experts” do not always agree on classification. AND… If’n it ain’t kickin’ ‘em out, it don’t really matter to me anyway, no action, no point… Gig’em! Will

Howdy Y’all, I started a new topic for this cause Imthink this deserves its own thread… @Calder posted a paper about them spinning and suggesting that they do. I had read that while they look like tornadoes, they don’t spin, according to “new” research (2018)…. The link Calder provided was from 2014. My gut tells me that they don’t spin… but it’s been wrong before… lol. Check it out here: https://www.space.com/40273-huge-solar-tornadoes-dont-actually-spin.html Here is the paper @Calder posted suggesting that they do… https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2041-8205/785/1/L2/pdf Anyone care to comment? @Scott McIntosh? All Y’all Have Ya a Good one! Will

This was from Jan 18… Regarding tornadoes on the limbs… https://www.space.com/40273-huge-solar-tornadoes-dont-actually-spin.html I’ve seen a couple of papers suggesting that they don’t rotate, even if it looks like a tornado… this sounds like a new topic… As fer speeds, check out the solar winds right now… lol. Then do the math! Cheers! Will