Erroneous classification of AR 13089

[Philalethes]

2 minutes ago, 3gMike said:

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 !

Yeah, exactly, that's what I meant; but that depends on the area of consideration, and how precise you want to be. If you e.g. only take the most magnetically active region and do the same, it would look like this instead:

That being said, I think the former gives a better impression of the overall mixing, and partially explains why this isn't that active yet (although it did have some activity earlier, so it's by no means too late; 3088 didn't even form until it was past the null meridian and has been firing like crazy).

[Landon Moeller]

3089 is now beta-gamma-delta, and has grown in size and complexity, but remained oddly quiet. 

[MinYoongi]

I dont see it as Gamma. may i know where you think the gamma part is in within the AR?. Noaa lists it as Beta Delta. @Philalethes Bythos opinion?

also why is here 5% chance and on noaa 10?

[Landon Moeller]

13 minutes ago, MinYoongi said:

I dont see it as Gamma. may i know where you think the gamma part is in within the AR?. Noaa lists it as Beta Delta. @Philalethes Bythos opinion?

also why is here 5% chance and on noaa 10?

NOAA officially classifies it as beta-gamma-delta, although someone more educated than me will need to point out the specific features. I find SWL is often unreliable with flare probabilities and always seek the Synoptic Hand Drawn Map. I am simply relaying info

[MinYoongi]

1 hour ago, Landon Moeller said:

NOAA officially classifies it as beta-gamma-delta, although someone more educated than me will need to point out the specific features. I find SWL is often unreliable with flare probabilities and always seek the Synoptic Hand Drawn Map. I am simply relaying info

My bad, youre actually right! Why do you think its unreliable? I look at the synoptic map too.  ! 

im just wondering where SWL pulls flare probabilitys from.

[Landon Moeller]

3 minutes ago, MinYoongi said:

My bad, youre actually right! Why do you think its unreliable? I look at the synoptic map too.  ! 

im just wondering where SWL pulls flare probabilitys from.

That I’m not sure about. And only half of the time the probabilities seem to line up with the synoptic map, so I get cautious 

[Yak]

It is like a bomb that is about to blow up. I am getting annoyed at 3088 as when it flares I get excited about a potential CME!

[Quantum]

I grabbed a recent screenshot and tried inverting the colors just to see what happened and the results are actually pretty cool.

[Vancanneyt Sander]

2 uren geleden, MinYoongi zei:

My bad, youre actually right! Why do you think its unreliable? I look at the synoptic map too.  ! 

im just wondering where SWL pulls flare probabilitys from.

From SWPC, the guys that also make the hand drawn synoptic map

[Philalethes]

5 hours ago, MinYoongi said:

I dont see it as Gamma. may i know where you think the gamma part is in within the AR?. Noaa lists it as Beta Delta. @Philalethes Bythos opinion?

also why is here 5% chance and on noaa 10?

Well, I already made the case in a couple of posts that it could be classified either way depending on how extensive a region you consider around it. I'm not sure about what exactly NOAA's methodology is there, but it doesn't surprise me that they'd consider it gamma; in fact, I'm inclined to agree with that assessment at this point, since the magnetically active region clearly isn't bipolar, and the weaker field around becomes less relevant in this regard as the region strengthens and complexifies (and it seems today it has done so a bit more).

[3gMike]

2 hours ago, Vancanneyt Sander said:

From SWPC, the guys that also make the hand drawn synoptic map

I guess that at least some of the differences arise from data being produced at different times of day. That leads me to wonder if there is any easy way to timestamp the images on SWL ?

[Vancanneyt Sander]

2 uren geleden, 3gMike zei:

I guess that at least some of the differences arise from data being produced at different times of day. That leads me to wonder if there is any easy way to timestamp the images on SWL ?

Yeah true, SWPC does some updates during the day but not always at same time. We check each hour to see if there is anything updated and update it accordingly. Images of the regions are updated every hour

[WildWill]

I thought this was an interesting view which shows magnetic fields lines and the spots associated with them.  I was expecting 3089 to look quite different.

Edited September 3, 2022 by WildWill

[Philalethes]

1 hour ago, WildWill said:

Actually, I don't think that is the most magnetically active region. I was surprised to see this, I thought the same as you...

Looks pretty quiet there, unless tam reading this wrong. 
 

WnA

Reread what I wrote. In this context "most magnetically active region" was a reference to within a single active region, in the same way that the extent of a city can have different definitions based on whether or not you exclusively refer to the center of it, include the suburbs, or even include areas beyond that, it didn't refer to a given active region being more active than any other; it was to point out that whether or not a region gets the "gamma" designation is based on whether or not its polarities are easily separable into two groups or not, but that this in turn hinges on exactly what region you consider, i.e. that the region is a gamma if you only consider the most magnetically active region shown in that image (which is reasonable), while it would not be if you also included the area that's less magnetically active immediately surrounding it, since you could see the main negative polarity and the delta polarity be connected that way (this is generally less reasonable if you ask me).

In fact, I fail to see what you think you are illustrating with that image; it demonstrates exactly what I'm saying.

[WildWill]

3 hours ago, Philalethes Bythos said:

Reread what I wrote. In this context "most magnetically active region" was a reference to within a single active region, in the same way that the extent of a city can have different definitions based on whether or not you exclusively refer to the center of it, include the suburbs, or even include areas beyond that, it didn't refer to a given active region being more active than any other; it was to point out that whether or not a region gets the "gamma" designation is based on whether or not its polarities are easily separable into two groups or not, but that this in turn hinges on exactly what region you consider, i.e. that the region is a gamma if you only consider the most magnetically active region shown in that image (which is reasonable), while it would not be if you also included the area that's less magnetically active immediately surrounding it, since you could see the main negative polarity and the delta polarity be connected that way (this is generally less reasonable if you ask me).

In fact, I fail to see what you think you are illustrating with that image; it demonstrates exactly what I'm saying.

Hi PB,

I did not mean to come across the way I apparent did. Please accept my apology.

Kindest.

WnA

PS: I was just trying to show the more active areas within the region. In particular the two spots of opposite polarity that have all those field lines between them.