Erroneous classification of AR 13089

[MinYoongi]

i fully agree, i really dont get what wildwill means. 

[WildWill]

2 hours ago, MinYoongi said:

????and? 

It had a delta, that died, now it has a new one in the trailing portion. Its a delta cuz the 2 black spots share a penumbra

It was not a delta Saturday and it's not a delta now because the spots do not share a single penumbra. Just because they are pushed against each other does not mean it's a delta.

or so I've been told. Even my limited experience says this would really be putting in a show it it was a delta

[MinYoongi]

3 minutes ago, WildWill said:

It was not a delta Saturday and it's not a delta now because the spots do not share a single penumbra. Just because they are pushed against each other does not mean it's a delta.

or so I've been told. Even my limited experience says this would really be putting in a show it it was a delta

Sorry if this sounds rude but you can see that it literally shares ONE big penumbra right? Where you draw the black line, i see no gap between the penumbras? do you really think everyone here + every scientist and noaa + nasa are wrong? serious question

[Philalethes]

1 minute ago, WildWill said:

It was not a delta Saturday and it's not a delta now because the spots do not share a single penumbra. Just because they are pushed against each other does not mean it's a delta.

or so I've been told. Even my limited experience says this would really be putting in a show it it was a delta

Can you explain in what sense you believe the two spots do not share a single penumbra? You drew a thick line in the middle there for no good reason that I can discern; what exactly would you expect to look different on the intensitygram if the two penumbrae had merged, as is the most common way deltas form? My supposition is that they already have merged and do in fact share the same penumbra, as seems clear from how there's only a single continuous penumbra there now, in contrast to the slight separation that was there back when the negative region didn't have an umbra yet (the first image you referred to in the thread).

[MinYoongi]

Before we all continue arguing i have a question though. so we have a delta and this time its not a fast dying one i suppose, so why are we not getting flares? Besides shear.

does shear build over time? is shear only how close they are?

[WildWill]

Just because the spots are pushed together doesn't mean they share the same penumbra. The red (+) spot is not surrounded by light blue.

Min hit the nail on the head. If this were a delta, it would be kickin up a storm! Not a single flare from this region today.  That orange you see around the red... that is penumbra from the red spot. The light blue you see around the blue spot is penumbra. Just because they are pushed together like that doesn't make it a delta.

They were pushed together like that since they came around the limb. So we don't know how it formed. But they do not share the same single penumbra.

 

And imma gonna leave it at that...

cheers!

WnA

Edited August 29, 2022 by WildWill

[MinYoongi]

It does not need to be surrounded to be a delta.. where do you have that info from will? 

[Philalethes]

8 minutes ago, MinYoongi said:

so why are we not getting flares?

That's a better question; if you ask me, it's because it's not that complex. In fact, I would argue that this region is a beta-delta, and not a gamma. I believe the adage that delta sunspots are highly active in general is based on the assumption that it's applied to regions which were already beta-gammas, or became so simultaneously as they became deltas. I could be wrong, and like magnetic shear is one variable there are probably other variables to account for too, but that's what seems most reasonable to me. When a delta forms like this without the surrounding complexity of a gamma, the fields seem to more easily align in a manner that has little shear, and that it's necessary for them to be "pushed" more from several sides to overcome this tendency. This is partly speculation on my end, but again, it seems reasonable and agrees with what I've seen from spots previously.

[MinYoongi]

and if you look at SDO movies it did not come around the limb like that :s i really hate to disagree with you

[Philalethes]

3 minutes ago, WildWill said:

Just because the spots are pushed together doesn't mean they share the same penumbra. The red (+) spot is not surrounded by light blue.

[...]

That orange you see around the red... that is penumbra from the red spot. The light blue you see around the blue spot is penumbra. Just because they are pushed together like that doesn't make it a delta.

They were pushed together like that since they came around the limb. So we don't know how it formed. But they do not share the same single penumbra.

That is definitely not true as far as I'm aware. If you search for "delta sunspot" and look at examples, you will see that this is clearly not the case. The entire point is that they end up sharing the same penumbra.

Also, the orange and light blue are colors on the magnetogram, and don't necessarily correspond to the penumbra at all, which you can really only see clearly on the intensitygram.

That last statement you made is simply incorrect, they were not pushed together like that since they came around the limb at all. In fact, the negative spot didn't even have an umbra until yesterday.

[Archmonoth]

1 hour ago, WildWill said:

It was not a delta Saturday and it's not a delta now because the spots do not share a single penumbra. Just because they are pushed against each other does not mean it's a delta.

The single penumbra is not exactly how the delta classification is made. They need to have the penumbra intermixed to some degree, and the inability to draw a line through their regions. This site's help link is pretty good on explaining this distinction: The magnetic classification of sunspots | Help | SpaceWeatherLive.com

1 hour ago, Philalethes Bythos said:

The entire point is that they end up sharing the same penumbra.

 

Thier penumbras need to be intermixed, not necessarily shared. I know it's a pedantic difference, but the complexity of delta needs at least 1 secondary spot within the opposite polarities' region. (As far as I know)

Edited August 29, 2022 by Archmonoth

[Philalethes]

3 minutes ago, Archmonoth said:

the complexity of delta needs at least 1 secondary spot within the opposite polarities' region

Interesting, I haven't seen this in any definition I've looked at; whose definition is that based on?

As for the difference between "shared" and "intermixed", I fail to see the difference, except if you mean in a purely definitional way based on that very criterion (i.e. that they only count as "shared" if there is such a secondary spot, despite no actual difference in the penumbra itself).

[Archmonoth]

2 hours ago, Philalethes Bythos said:

Interesting, I haven't seen this in any definition I've looked at; whose definition is that based on?

As for the difference between "shared" and "intermixed", I fail to see the difference, except if you mean in a purely definitional way based on that very criterion (i.e. that they only count as "shared" if there is such a secondary spot, despite no actual difference in the penumbra itself).

I was reading this: Sunspot Classifications (daystarfilters.com) Although I'm not sure exactly how technical or accurate it might be:

"Deltas are some of the largest and most active areas on the sun. The Delta is defined as two or more umbrae of opposite polarity which are inside a single penumbra or penumbral area. The opposite polarities are generally within two degrees of each other."

 

The secondary spot requirement is a way of saying there needs to be another (2 or more) umbrae in the penumbra. 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2022 by Archmonoth

[Philalethes]

29 minutes ago, Archmonoth said:

I was reading this: Sunspot Classifications (daystarfilters.com) Although I'm not sure exactly how technical or accurate it might be:

"Deltas are some of the largest and most active areas on the sun. The Delta is defined as two or more umbrae of opposite polarity which are inside a single penumbra or penumbral area. The opposite polarities are generally within two degrees of each other."

 

The secondary spot requirement is a way of saying there needs to be another (2 or more) umbrae in the penumbra. 

I've read that (it's the one I linked to on the previous page), and I think you're misreading that completely. Two or more umbrae of opposite polarity simply means there needs to be a minimum of two umbrae in the same penumbra, each one having different polarity. Stating it as "two or more" is just covering the fact that two spots of one polarity and one of the other for a total of three rather than two, and so on, would still classify. It doesn't mean there needs to be an extra spot of either polarity for it to count, one of each suffices.

Edited August 29, 2022 by Philalethes Bythos

[3gMike]

9 minutes ago, Philalethes Bythos said:

I've read that, and I think you're misreading that completely. Two or more umbrae of opposite polarity simply means there needs to be a minimum of two umbrae in the same penumbra, each one having different polarity. It doesn't mean there needs to be an extra spot of either polarity for it to count.

Agreed.

I was also just looking at the latest synoptic map from 17:51 UTC today.

https://gyazo.com/1263fc42de977813b3c5bbe9c5a46b0e

Interestingly that appears to show all of the trailing spots sitting in a +ve field area. That is clearly inconsistent with the Magnetogram, which I believe represents the spots at a similar time (based on location being longitude E09 - compared with E18 at 00:00UTC). 

[Archmonoth]

1 hour ago, Philalethes Bythos said:

I've read that (it's the one I linked to on the previous page), and I think you're misreading that completely. Two or more umbrae of opposite polarity simply means there needs to be a minimum of two umbrae in the same penumbra, each one having different polarity. Stating it as "two or more" is just covering the fact that two spots of one polarity and one of the other for a total of three rather than two, and so on, would still classify. It doesn't mean there needs to be an extra spot of either polarity for it to count, one of each suffices.

Thanks for the correction! 

 

So, do you think the spot in question is a delta?

 

[Philalethes]

3 minutes ago, Archmonoth said:

Thanks for the correction! 

So, do you think the spot in question is a delta?

At least I think that's the only reasonable interpretation, and from all examples I've seen from previously unambiguously classified deltas it seems like one spot of each polarity is adequate.

And yes, I think it's a delta. Perhaps not the most typical one, since there's not much activity, but as someone else pointed out there's not much magnetic shear, which I speculated is probably due to the fact that the region is not that complex; I even suggested that it's perhaps not a gamma, although I could understand it if someone wanted to classify it as such, I'd actually say determining whether or not a region is gamma is more difficult than determining whether or not it's delta. From what I've gathered, the most active regions are a combination of both.

 

[MinYoongi]

17 minutes ago, 3gMike said:

Agreed.

I was also just looking at the latest synoptic map from 17:51 UTC today.

https://gyazo.com/1263fc42de977813b3c5bbe9c5a46b0e

Interestingly that appears to show all of the trailing spots sitting in a +ve field area. That is clearly inconsistent with the Magnetogram, which I believe represents the spots at a similar time (based on location being longitude E09 - compared with E18 at 00:00UTC). 

Im sorry mike, could you explain this in easier words for me? I have no clue what you mean  Im such a dummy.

[3gMike]

1 minute ago, MinYoongi said:

Im sorry mike, could you explain this in easier words for me? I have no clue what you mean  Im such a dummy.

You are definitely not a dummy ! I just need to express myself more clearly.

The magnetogram for AR3089 shows some of the trailing spots as red on a yellow background i.e. negative spots sitting in a patch of negative field, so I would have expected the synoptic map to also show that patch of negative field - but it does not. The references to longitude were my attempt to demonstrate that the synoptic map was drawn at around the same time as the magnetogram was captured, and therefore they should show the same information.

I hope that is clearer now.

[MinYoongi]

1 minute ago, 3gMike said:

You are definitely not a dummy ! I just need to express myself more clearly.

The magnetogram for AR3089 shows some of the trailing spots as red on a yellow background i.e. negative spots sitting in a patch of negative field, so I would have expected the synoptic map to also show that patch of negative field - but it does not. The references to longitude were my attempt to demonstrate that the synoptic map was drawn at around the same time as the magnetogram was captured, and therefore they should show the same information.

I hope that is clearer now.

much clearer, thank you! I just have to ask now ; What does that change if the negative spot would sit in a positive field?

[3gMike]

2 minutes ago, MinYoongi said:

much clearer, thank you! I just have to ask now ; What does that change if the negative spot would sit in a positive field?

It would have to be a positive spot ! I can only think the map is just simplified, because the negative field would be very small on the scale the map is drawn.

[Philalethes]

18 minutes ago, 3gMike said:

Agreed.

I was also just looking at the latest synoptic map from 17:51 UTC today.

https://gyazo.com/1263fc42de977813b3c5bbe9c5a46b0e

Interestingly that appears to show all of the trailing spots sitting in a +ve field area. That is clearly inconsistent with the Magnetogram, which I believe represents the spots at a similar time (based on location being longitude E09 - compared with E18 at 00:00UTC). 

Based on where the negative spot is drawn, it seems like it's just a bit sloppy. Maybe also combined with the fact that regions that have some complexity (although this isn't that complex, at least not yet) aren't as easy to divide that simply.

I'd say the division is roughly like this:

That's also why I'd argue that it's not really a proper gamma yet, since the negative regions are still somewhat connected through the larger field; however, I guess that depends on what region you take into consideration, if you only consider the most magnetically active regions, then you could make the case that it's already a gamma.

[MinYoongi]

Just now, Philalethes Bythos said:

Based on where the negative spot is drawn, it seems like it's just a bit sloppy. Maybe also combined with the fact that regions that have some complexity (although this isn't that complex, at least not yet) aren't as easy to divide that simply.

I'd say the division is roughly like this:

That's also why I'd argue that it's not really a proper gamma yet, since the negative regions are still somewhat connected through the larger field; however, I guess that depends on what region you take into consideration, if you only consider the most magnetically active regions, then you could make the case that it's already a gamma.

what would make the region more complex?

[Philalethes]

Just now, MinYoongi said:

what would make the region more complex?

If e.g. the negative region on the left got surrounded completely by positive spots, or the positive region on the right started growing towards the negative region from that direction, or a negative region emerged right under the large positive spots so they got surrounded instead; or perhaps a good combination of all the above. Just more positive in the negative and vice versa, heh.

[3gMike]

10 minutes ago, Philalethes Bythos said:

Based on where the negative spot is drawn, it seems like it's just a bit sloppy. Maybe also combined with the fact that regions that have some complexity (although this isn't that complex, at least not yet) aren't as easy to divide that simply.

I'd say the division is roughly like this:

That's also why I'd argue that it's not really a proper gamma yet, since the negative regions are still somewhat connected through the larger field; however, I guess that depends on what region you take into consideration, if you only consider the most magnetically active regions, then you could make the case that it's already a gamma.

I think the fact that you just drew a line between the positive and negative regions suggests that it is not a Gamma yet. But I have to say I am still trying to gain confidence with sunspot classification !