Jump to content

SC25 flare activity greater than SC23?


Sam Warfel
Go to solution Solved by Jesterface23,

Recommended Posts

  • Solution
2 hours ago, Sam Warfel said:

 Is this a quirk of the data measuring somehow?

Pretty much. GOES 16-18 values are higher compared to the previous GOES satellites. The GOES 1-15 science quality data is being re-processed. Goes 8-15 looks to be done, but at this point last year I believe they planned to have it all done by now. GOES 1-7 is now planned to be completed in 2024.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/goes-space-environment-monitor/access/science/xrs/GOES_1-15_XRS_Science-Quality_Data_Readme.pdf

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jesterface23 said:

Pretty much. GOES 16-18 values are higher compared to the previous GOES satellites. The GOES 1-15 science quality data is being re-processed. Goes 8-15 looks to be done, but at this point last year I believe they planned to have it all done by now. GOES 1-7 is now planned to be completed in 2024.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/goes-space-environment-monitor/access/science/xrs/GOES_1-15_XRS_Science-Quality_Data_Readme.pdf

Looks like you can multiply the magnitudes of recent flares by 0.7 to get what they would have been in previous cycles. So an M5 in this cycle would have been measured at around M3.5 last cycle.

This cycle has been really lacking in strong flares. The flare on December 14 is the only flare of this cycle that would have reached X2 in previous cycles.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jesterface23 said:

Pretty much. GOES 16-18 values are higher compared to the previous GOES satellites. The GOES 1-15 science quality data is being re-processed. Goes 8-15 looks to be done, but at this point last year I believe they planned to have it all done by now. GOES 1-7 is now planned to be completed in 2024.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/goes-space-environment-monitor/access/science/xrs/GOES_1-15_XRS_Science-Quality_Data_Readme.pdf

Interesting, I didn’t know that. Thank you for the information!

8 hours ago, hamateur 1953 said:

I’m pretty sure @3gMikewould like to weigh in on this.  I pmed him to wish him a Merry Christmas etc. But he’s very busy lately. Hopefully back soon. Nice to see ya back btw @Sam Warfel Mike/Hagrid. Merry Christmas dude!! 

Merry Christmas!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jesterface23 said:

Pretty much. GOES 16-18 values are higher compared to the previous GOES satellites. The GOES 1-15 science quality data is being re-processed. Goes 8-15 looks to be done, but at this point last year I believe they planned to have it all done by now. GOES 1-7 is now planned to be completed in 2024.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/goes-space-environment-monitor/access/science/xrs/GOES_1-15_XRS_Science-Quality_Data_Readme.pdf

Soo. This is potentially a very big deal, unless I am missing something.  Our SFI logs should be uncorrupted as they have been and still are ground based in British Columbia Canada.  Hmmm. Well for now I can easily multiply times .7 to get our relative baseline ABCMX levels until this gets corrected.   Edit: Now I am really getting confused.  Haha. I give up!!   I guess where I am particularly confused is hypothetically is it safe for me to presume that our current renderings of flux levels are therefore approximately seven tenths of the displayed values?? Tnx Mike

Edited by hamateur 1953
Cornfused over data
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cross-calibration among measurements of irradiance/x-ray by different instruments has been a major problem sadly. That makes it hard to compare data from old instruments with new ones. I hope we can settle on some sort of standard in the future.

Edited by arjemma
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well done @3gMike   I tend to agree in general of course, as far as the higher activity.   Perhaps after this cycle, it will be able to be properly viewed in retrospect.  Net ergs or whatever speculative hypothesis the scientific community comes up with.  Cool stuff.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 uren geleden, 3gMike zei:

The factored values were obtained simply by shifting any flare of magnitude 1.4 or less into the next lower category. For example, an M1.4 becomes C9.8

It’s actually the other way around, removing the SWPC scaling factor is actually making flares stronger. For example X2,5 would become X3,6.

thanks to @Jesterface23 for delivering the scientific data, we are in the process of updating our flare database with the corrected values based on the reprocessed scientific dataset (that has the scaling removed as well). it has been a tremendous work past couple of days to fix many things as well in the solar flare database (incorrect values, wrong times, wrong dates, typos,…) and to prepare for an as automated as possible update. 
Our archived X-ray operational data will also receive an update to remove the SWPC scaling. The top lists will be regenerated and SC cycle graphs after we do this major update. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vancanneyt Sander said:

It’s actually the other way around, removing the SWPC scaling factor is actually making flares stronger. For example X2,5 would become X3,6.

thanks to @Jesterface23 for delivering the scientific data, we are in the process of updating our flare database with the corrected values based on the reprocessed scientific dataset (that has the scaling removed as well). it has been a tremendous work past couple of days to fix many things as well in the solar flare database (incorrect values, wrong times, wrong dates, typos,…) and to prepare for an as automated as possible update. 
Our archived X-ray operational data will also receive an update to remove the SWPC scaling. The top lists will be regenerated and SC cycle graphs after we do this major update. 

1 hour ago, hamateur 1953 said:

Well, although I’m even more confused than before, I trust that smarter people @Jesterface23and @Vancanneyt Sander evidently are going to work this through.  Haha. 

Yeah, now I'm confused as to which data is scaled which way too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vancanneyt Sander said:

It’s actually the other way around, removing the SWPC scaling factor is actually making flares stronger. For example X2,5 would become X3,6.

thanks to @Jesterface23 for delivering the scientific data, we are in the process of updating our flare database with the corrected values based on the reprocessed scientific dataset (that has the scaling removed as well). it has been a tremendous work past couple of days to fix many things as well in the solar flare database (incorrect values, wrong times, wrong dates, typos,…) and to prepare for an as automated as possible update. 
Our archived X-ray operational data will also receive an update to remove the SWPC scaling. The top lists will be regenerated and SC cycle graphs after we do this major update. 

Yes, I understand that. I was scaling current values down to get a match with previous values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Vancanneyt Sander said:

Everything prior to GOES-16 needs scaling ;) 

Right, I think I understand why I was confused now; it's not that you get drastically different results in terms of just comparing activity by scaling down SC25 (and the last years of SC24 after GOES-16 launched), but that in reality you should be scaling up everything else (so that you get more flares for past cycles instead of less flares for 2016 and after), correct? If so that makes sense, if not I guess I'm still confused.

Edited by Philalethes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Philalethes said:

Right, I think I understand why I was confused now; it's not that you get drastically different results in terms of just comparing activity by scaling down SC25 (and the last years of SC24 after GOES-16 launched), but that in reality you should be scaling up everything else (so that you get more flares for past cycles instead of less flares for 2016 and after), correct? If so that makes sense, if not I guess I'm still confused.

As I see it, and what I was attempting to illustrate, is that scaling the magnitude does not significantly affect the number of reported flares. I do not see any reason why we would expect any difference between scaling up earlier magnitudes, or scaling down current values. That said, I would be happy to hear alternative views.

Edit: For avoidance of confusion it is correct to say that pre GOES 16 values need to be scaled up to be represented correctly.

Edited by 3gMike
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, 3gMike said:

As I see it, and what I was attempting to illustrate, is that scaling the magnitude does not significantly affect the number of reported flares. I do not see any reason why we would expect any difference between scaling up earlier magnitudes, or scaling down current values. That said, I would be happy to hear alternative views.

Edit: For avoidance of confusion it is correct to say that pre GOES 16 values need to be scaled up to be represented correctly.

Yep, that's exactly what I figured; for comparing the two you should get roughly the same overall results in terms of relative activity by just scaling down the post-GOES-16 ones, but strictly speaking it's the pre-GOES-16 data that should be scaled up.

That being said, thinking a bit more about it, I can think of a factor that might throw a spanner in the works when doing such a comparison for C-flares specifically, although it would probably pose a problem regardless of which part you scale up or down, and that is that when you get down to a background flux level around low-level C or higher it won't always be possible to measure C-flares properly there; this would mean that scaling down the data will only scale down the C-flares that are registered, which will be mostly above the level where they'd be scaled down to B-level and thus out of the count (and when scaling the other way you'd encounter a similar problem, albeit a bit different, namely that there would probably not be a good way to measure all the high-level B-flares that should have been scaled up to C-level).

At least to me that stands out as a possible problem for such a comparison when looking at the C-flares, so perhaps in that sense it's better to look at M-flares, which do noticeably get shifted down (maybe due to the above the amount of actual C-flares occurring should also really have been shifted down, as the count would possibly be higher to begin with if one were able to register all the low-level C-flares that would be shifted down). In that case maybe it might just be better to just scale the number in each class down by the scaling factor, which would leave 2023 closer to around 1999 or 2000, which is more what I'd expect.

Hope that's not too confusing and some valuable input in any case; also, you can probably check if there's anything to what I'm saying by looking at the number of C-flares for each subdivision of the C-class (i.e. counting C1.X, C2.X...C9.X separately), and checking if there is indeed a conspicuous dearth of low-level flares there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will add an American monkey wrench to this…. Are we certain both scales are linear under comparison?   Oh no! Let’s not go THERE. Ok. Shutting up now. Btw I finally found the second peak in SC 20. It’s only taken me fifty years…credit: Jan Alvestad and historical triple  charts .  Hahaha   Edit:  Thanks for the clarification @Vancanneyt Sander  Happy New Year btw all. Mike/Hagrid 

Edited by hamateur 1953
Credit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well… we may not look directly at the C-flare count. If you watched a lot of the archived data, you’ll see that not every C-flare is registered as a flare in the graphs especially back in the old days where each flare was manually added to a list and depending on the day you’ll had all flares registered or just not all of them. In current days this is now more automated with each flare being registered. All M and X flares are in the flare lists so those are accurate.

Due to the scaling being removed from old GOES data prior to 16, the upper C-flares will now be M-class and the upper M-flares X-class. So after the removal of the SWPC scaling, we’ll have more M and X-class flares for SC23 and SC24

Ps: if all goes well, we might go live with it tomorrow

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you also agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.