Spaceweather.com comparing current sunspots to 1859 Carrington sunspot?

[Bedreamon]

I dunno if this belongs here or in the main solar activity forum, so mods are free to either move it or delete it if it doesn't belong here at all.

I recently got back into keeping track of space weather stuff since I got notifications from the SWL app about the recent flares from AR3341, and I checked through all the websites I have bookmarked to see what's going on. I noticed spaceweather.com started comparing decently-sized sunspots to the one from 1859 since, like, a week ago. This isn't to dis them at all and is only to figure out its purpose and usefulness. Is there... any relevancy to this comparison at all? It says it's to illustrate its size, but we've had many giant sunspots in the past that've been similar in-size to that one and either never shot anything out or only did so on the limb. 🤔

Edited June 20, 2023 by Bedreamon

[Philalethes]

41 minutes ago, Bedreamon said:

I dunno if this belongs here or in the main solar activity forum, so mods are free to either move it or delete it if it doesn't belong here at all.

I recently got back into keeping track of space weather stuff since I got notifications from the SWL app about the recent flares from AR3341, and I checked through all the websites I have bookmarked to see what's going on. I noticed spaceweather.com started comparing decently-sized sunspots to the one from 1859 since, like, a week ago. This isn't to dis them at all and is only to figure out its purpose and usefulness. Is there... any relevancy to this comparison at all? It says it's to illustrate its size, but we've had many giant sunspots in the past that've been similar in-size to that one and either never shot anything out or only did so on the limb. 🤔

Doesn't seem very useful to me. It was certainly hefty, but I would also guess that there have been many regions of that size that didn't do much, or at least not nearly that much; I'm not entirely sure about that though, could be that I'm underestimating its sizeable bulk, but it sounds right.

My first thought is that it's just a new tactic for shock value, perhaps even intentional fearmongering. Not a great look if you ask me. Maybe if they just did it with a select few large and complex regions it'd be more interesting.

[Sam Warfel]

4 hours ago, Bedreamon said:

I dunno if this belongs here or in the main solar activity forum, so mods are free to either move it or delete it if it doesn't belong here at all.

I recently got back into keeping track of space weather stuff since I got notifications from the SWL app about the recent flares from AR3341, and I checked through all the websites I have bookmarked to see what's going on. I noticed spaceweather.com started comparing decently-sized sunspots to the one from 1859 since, like, a week ago. This isn't to dis them at all and is only to figure out its purpose and usefulness. Is there... any relevancy to this comparison at all? It says it's to illustrate its size, but we've had many giant sunspots in the past that've been similar in-size to that one and either never shot anything out or only did so on the limb. 🤔

It’s about complexity more than size. 

Spaceweather’s image is an interesting visualization, but not at all relevant right now, and probably just designed to get clicks by using the word “Carrington”

[helios]

In this context, I remember the sunspots during the halloween storms, they appear to have been similar in size to the carrington one. 
It was an exciting time. X-class flare after X-class flare and not just lousy X1's 😄

Edited June 21, 2023 by helios

[Ester89]

8 hours ago, helios said:

In this context, I remember the sunspots during the halloween storms, they appear to have been similar in size to the carrington one. 
It was an exciting time. X-class flare after X-class flare and not just lousy X1's 😄

How I would like to witness something like this