Sunspots reaching 1,000-year high

BBC News ^ | Tuesday, 6 July, 2004 | Dr David Whitehouse

[A knight without armor]

“In particular, it has been noted that between about 1645 and 1715, few sunspots were seen on the Sun’s surface.”

Is it possible that in the 1600’s things were not extremely accurate? Come to think about it, it is possible that things in 2007 are not extremely accurate? Maybe all this is what’s called “nature.”

[cinives]

cool shower, nearby creek - I just knew there must be a way ... there are surely some who were born in April :)

[ChessExpert]

That is a neat movie in the link provided. The flare seemed instantaneous in the video. Stepping through the frames and looking at the time information, I think it lasted about a half hour. To traverse the sun in such a short period of time means it was really moving.

Thanks for the many excellent posts.

[ChessExpert]

“Been self taught since then.”

That can be the best teaching.

[FreeAtlanta]

Damn Republicans

[justa-hairyape]

From what I understand that flare (number 1 ranked flare) was so strong that we really do not know how large it was. The instrumentation monitoring it was saturated. That is why its size is listed as X28+. There really are some informative web sights now on-line concerning solar weather.

ps - I also had underwent many months of corporate training after leaving college. But hey, we don't count that.

[muawiyah]

Putting a coda on this sunspot thread, it seems that as of today we haven't seen a sunspot for seveal months.

They're speaking of something like a Dalton Minimum.