#### Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Options

edited December 2016

I am currently looking for solar irradiance measurements done with satellites. I sofar found only the sorce mission and something called acrimsat. I found no diagrams or visualizations for acrim/acrimsat (at least not within a decent time).

I remember that especially russian scientists had traditionally kept an eye on the sun and likewise had partially different views on global climate developments so I also tried to find links to missions on the russian irradiance website but found no links.

As you know from the methane discussion I am especially interested in UV measurements. Unfortunately it seems first that sorce doesn't cover all ranges but secondly that it had a major breakdown lately especially in the higher UV range. (<100nm) This is somewhat disconcerting since it looks as if irradiation is on average on the rise since 2003 while there seem to be big differences between different spectral lines. Compare e.g. the time series (found no perma link) 1499.65nm and 115.5nm and 698.85nm.

• Options
1.

The SORCE site is using the same interactive graphing JavaScript library that I have been using on my server. It works very well for time series data.

Comment Source:The SORCE site is using the same interactive graphing JavaScript library that I have been using on my server. It works very well for time series data. 
• Options
2.

The interactive javascript is handy for reading values but unfortunately I can't link to an image, and I dont dare to display a screenshot on my own homepage.

Otherwise you would directly see that for 781.31nm the solar irradiance describes a kind of hockey stick with the irradiance rising from 1.1707 Wm^2/nm in 04212003 to 1.1753 Wm^2/nm in 22112016. Similar for the 798.83nm measurements. Where it has been rising rather dramatically in the past two years.

To my great disconcert there is an absorption right in this range in methane:

In the comment here I cited the following:

Between 300 and 800 nm the stratosphere is only weakly absorbing and most of the solar radiation at these wavelengths is transmitted into the troposphere.

Gunnar Myrrhe said on near infrared investigations:

"Near-infrared absorption by CH4 has been investigated earlier and I know it is under further investigations. It is not obvious whether the near-infrared absorption leads to a positive or negative forcing, since it depends if the absorption occur in the troposphere or stratosphere. "

Goddard writes:

Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more.

But I have that very bad feeling that there was not enough attention to methane absorption in the UV and infrared. Does anybody know of any new findings with regard to this? I haven't found anything in my search engine bubbles.

Comment Source:The interactive javascript is handy for reading values but unfortunately I can't link to an image, and I dont dare to display a screenshot on my own homepage. Otherwise you would directly see that for 781.31nm the <strong>solar irradiance describes a kind of hockey stick</strong> with the irradiance rising from 1.1707 Wm^2/nm in 04212003 to 1.1753 Wm^2/nm in 22112016. Similar for the 798.83nm measurements. Where it <strong>has been rising rather dramatically in the past two years.</strong> To my great disconcert there is an absorption right in this range in methane: ![obrien](http://vpl.astro.washington.edu/spectra/obrienfig10.jpg) In the <a href="https://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/comment/14859/#Comment_14859">comment here</a> I cited the following: >Between 300 and 800 nm the stratosphere is only weakly absorbing and most of the solar radiation at these wavelengths is transmitted into the troposphere. Gunnar Myrrhe <a href="https://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/comment/14859/#Comment_14859">said</a> on near infrared investigations: >"Near-infrared absorption by CH4 has been investigated earlier and I know it is under further investigations. It is not obvious whether the near-infrared absorption leads to a positive or negative forcing, since it depends if the absorption occur in the troposphere or stratosphere. " <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html">Goddard writes:</a> >Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. But I have that very bad feeling that there was not enough attention to methane absorption in the UV and infrared. Does anybody know of any new findings with regard to this? I haven't found anything in my search engine bubbles.
• Options
3.
edited December 2016

I wouldn't wonder if the strange QBO behaviour http://www.geo.fu-berlin.de/en/met/ag/strat/produkte/qbo/ may be related to this. I sent an email to Gunnar Myrrhe.

Comment Source:I wouldn't wonder if the strange QBO behaviour http://www.geo.fu-berlin.de/en/met/ag/strat/produkte/qbo/ may be related to this. I sent an email to Gunnar Myrrhe.
• Options
4.

"I wouldn't wonder if the strange QBO behaviour http://www.geo.fu-berlin.de/en/met/ag/strat/produkte/qbo/ may be related to this."

What "strange QBO behaviour"? Do you mean the QBO behaviour that has been observed since 1953?

Comment Source:> "I wouldn't wonder if the strange QBO behaviour http://www.geo.fu-berlin.de/en/met/ag/strat/produkte/qbo/ may be related to this." What "strange QBO behaviour"? Do you mean the QBO behaviour that has been observed since 1953? 
• Options
5.
edited December 2016

What "strange QBO behaviour"? Do you mean the QBO behaviour that has been observed since 1953?

No - if you look at the hockey stick (please have look!!) than you see that the irradiances for the 800 nm lines like the 798.83nm soared dramatically in the last 2 years. So with strange QBO behaviour I mean the last strange QBO in 2015/2016 which we discussed here this August. All this looks very very bad.

Comment Source:>What "strange QBO behaviour"? Do you mean the QBO behaviour that has been observed since 1953? No - if you look at the hockey stick (please have look!!) than you see that the irradiances for the 800 nm lines like the 798.83nm soared dramatically in the last 2 years. So with strange QBO behaviour I mean the last strange QBO in 2015/2016 which we discussed <a href="https://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/comment/15460/#Comment_15460">here this August.</a> All this looks very very bad.
• Options
6.

I haven't yet heard from Gunnar Myhre. By the way apologies for mispelling his last name - I just noticed it is "Myhre" like the well-known singer's last name not "Myrrhe" or "Myrhe."

Comment Source:I haven't yet heard from Gunnar Myhre. By the way apologies for mispelling his last name - I just noticed it is "Myhre" like the <a href="https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wencke_Myhre">well-known singer's</a> last name not "Myrrhe" or "Myrhe."
• Options
7.
edited December 2016

I scanned now through the spectrum to see how broad this "recent bump" is and it extends very roughly (each loading for a frequency takes quite long) from 650-950nm, so it looks on a first sight that also a water absorption band would lie in this region: solar spectrum. On a rough glimpse the irradiance rise is around 0.008 that is at 947.35nm it raises from 0.816 to 0.824 W/m^2 nm, so if we assume 2 is 100% this is about 0.4%. I find that a lot, but I have absolutely no feeling how this translates to effects on earth.

Comment Source:I scanned now through the spectrum to see how broad this "recent bump" is and it extends very roughly (each loading for a frequency takes quite long) from 650-950nm, so it looks on a first sight that also a water absorption band would lie in this region: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg">solar spectrum.</a> On a rough glimpse the irradiance rise is around 0.008 that is at 947.35nm it raises from 0.816 to 0.824 W/m^2 nm, so if we assume 2 is 100% this is about 0.4%. I find that a lot, but I have absolutely no feeling how this translates to effects on earth.
• Options
8.
edited December 2016

this is about 0.4%. I find that a lot,

Why do I find that a lot? I did a very rough estimation, maybe too rough but may be it should be communicated as well: The "bump" is around 0.003 at 650nm (for this frequency the 2 year slope is actually not pronounced because there irradiance had risen since 2003, but anyways) . On a rough browse the slope increases until around 950nm (see 947.35) at the line 981.15nm it decreases already rather sharply. So let's assume the shape of the bump is approximately a step on the solar spectrum flank. So roughly it's half of a quadrilateral with width 300nm and height 0.008 W/m^2 nm. That is $$0.5*300*0.008 W/m^2= 1.2 W/m^2$$. I assume that this is the power per squaremeter as received on earth, i.e. the distance to the satellite had already been cared for. But thats a lot, especially as apparently "Between 300 and 800 nm the stratosphere is only weakly absorbing and most of the solar radiation at these wavelengths is transmitted into the troposphere." On a 1000 m^2 lawn patch you could easily power an electric lawn mower with that. But as said I have no idea how much of that radiation stays, interacts and at other places of the spectrum you have "negative bumps" etc.

Comment Source:>this is about 0.4%. I find that a lot, Why do I find that a lot? I did a very rough estimation, maybe too rough but may be it should be communicated as well: The "bump" is around 0.003 at 650nm (for this frequency the 2 year slope is actually not pronounced because there irradiance had risen since 2003, but anyways) . On a rough browse the slope increases until around 950nm (see 947.35) at the line 981.15nm it decreases already rather sharply. So let's assume the shape of the bump is approximately a step on the solar spectrum flank. So roughly it's half of a quadrilateral with width 300nm and height 0.008 W/m^2 nm. That is $$0.5*300*0.008 W/m^2= 1.2 W/m^2$$. I assume that this is the power per squaremeter as received on earth, i.e. the distance to the satellite had already been cared for. But thats a lot, especially as apparently "Between 300 and 800 nm the stratosphere is only weakly absorbing and most of the solar radiation at these wavelengths is transmitted into the troposphere." On a 1000 m^2 lawn patch you could easily power an electric lawn mower with that. But as said I have no idea how much of that radiation stays, interacts and at other places of the spectrum you have "negative bumps" etc.
• Options
9.

I wrote

That is $$0.5∗300∗0.008W/m^2=1.2W/m^2$$

ANYWAYS - Using the Lisird data I now linearly approximated the given datapoints and "integrated" that. This is still an approximation but I fear one can't get it much better. Between 638.23nm and 981.15nm the calculation gives

$$0.9330592499999997 W/m^2$$

which is quite close to my very bold estimate above (where I had neglected some data and shear) . In fact the bump is even visible, see how the spectrum splits in a purple and dark red line in the lower red circle:

The image shows a comparision of the spectral data of the sun between day 132 and 5073 starting Jan 24, 2003, i.e. from spectral data from 2003 and 2016.

Here now the line 774.5nm between day 132 and 5073 starting Jan 24, 2003:

One clearly sees the steep rise in the last two years (as mentioned in my comment at the beginning). The image in Lisird looks of course the same.

Moreover EVEN MORE DISCONCERTING by looking at the comparision (first image above) one can notice that already in the 500nm's there is a difference. Here the rise has been more or less steadily (please check yourself on Lisird). Altogether one gets from integrating between 443.96nm and 981.15nm a value of $$1.500225250000001W/m^2 !!!$$ In contrast to the above spectral lines some spectral lines are rather strongly fluctuating so the overall integral of the difference between 2003 and 2016 will probably be fluctuating as well but here what I got when integrating the difference from 2003 and 2016 between180.5nm and 1797.62 nm: $$0.6098603000000024W/m^2$$ So clearly the near infrared behaves differently then the overall TSI and as said before this sounds very bad to me.

Comment Source:I wrote >That is $$0.5∗300∗0.008W/m^2=1.2W/m^2$$ I now downloaded the data from Lisird - actually not the "all" -file for download but "all" from the interactive download, which had a smaller data size, which was although about half the size still hard to handle on my laptop and so alone the downloading was a pain in the ass. But well I think this is important. ANYWAYS - Using the Lisird data I now linearly approximated the given datapoints and "integrated" that. This is still an approximation but I fear one can't get it much better. Between 638.23nm and 981.15nm the calculation gives >$$0.9330592499999997 W/m^2$$ which is quite close to my very bold estimate above (where I had neglected some data and shear) . In fact the bump is even visible, see how the spectrum splits in a purple and dark red line in the lower red circle: <a href="http://www.randform.org/blog/wp-content/2017/01/BergbildTag132Tag5073at300Kreis.png"><img src="http://www.randform.org/blog/wp-content/2017/01/BergbildTag132Tag5073at300Kreis.png" alt="" title="BergbildTag132Tag5073at300Kreis" width="1053" height="745" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-6527" /></a> The image shows a comparision of the spectral data of the sun between day 132 and 5073 starting Jan 24, 2003, i.e. from spectral data from 2003 and 2016. Here now the line 774.5nm between day 132 and 5073 starting Jan 24, 2003: <a href="http://www.randform.org/blog/wp-content/2017/01/Verlauf774.51Linie.png"><img src="http://www.randform.org/blog/wp-content/2017/01/Verlauf774.51Linie.png" alt="" title="Verlauf774.51Linie" width="1006" height="585" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-6528" /></a> One clearly sees the steep rise in the last two years (as mentioned in my comment at the beginning). The image in Lisird looks of course the same. Moreover EVEN MORE DISCONCERTING by looking at the comparision (first image above) one can notice that already in the 500nm's there is a difference. Here the rise has been more or less steadily (please check yourself on Lisird). Altogether one gets from integrating between 443.96nm and 981.15nm a value of $$1.500225250000001W/m^2 !!!$$ In contrast to the above spectral lines some spectral lines are rather strongly fluctuating so the overall integral of the difference between 2003 and 2016 will probably be fluctuating as well but here what I got when integrating the difference from 2003 and 2016 between180.5nm and 1797.62 nm: $$0.6098603000000024W/m^2$$ So clearly the near infrared behaves differently then the overall TSI and as said before this sounds very bad to me. 
• Options
10.

1.500225250000001W/m2!!!

Curious why you have so many significant digits?

0.6098603000000024W/m2

and here?

When I am working on lunar forcing for QBO, the precision is important, as I can easily detect a difference between a value of 27.21 days versus 27.212 days for the Draconic or nodal cycle. In particular, if this is aliased against an annual cycle, then the uncertainty is magnified so that the extra precision is easily justified.

But is keeping precision to the 15th place in the case of an energy density justified?

Comment Source:> 1.500225250000001W/m2!!! Curious why you have so many significant digits? > 0.6098603000000024W/m2 and here? When I am working on lunar forcing for QBO, the precision is important, as I can easily detect a difference between a value of 27.21 days versus 27.212 days for the Draconic or nodal cycle. In particular, if this is aliased against an annual cycle, then the uncertainty is magnified so that the extra precision is easily justified. But is keeping precision to the 15th place in the case of an energy density justified? 
• Options
11.
edited January 2017

But is keeping precision to the 15th place in the case of an energy density justified?

It's clear from the context ("This is still an approximation but...") that I do not imply such a precision. I kept the decimals in order to make it faster visible that this is the outcome from an automated calculation involving thousands of measurements. And in some sense I wanted that people stumble over the decimals in order to have a more in-depth look at the whole thing. Moreover the whole thread started out with asking for more measurements. That is the 1W/m^2 could be easily due to a measurement error.

Comment Source:>But is keeping precision to the 15th place in the case of an energy density justified? It's clear from the context ("This is still an approximation but...") that I do not imply such a precision. I kept the decimals in order to make it faster visible that this is the outcome from an automated calculation involving thousands of measurements. And in some sense I wanted that people stumble over the decimals in order to have a more in-depth look at the whole thing. Moreover the whole thread started out with asking for more measurements. That is the 1W/m^2 could be easily due to a measurement error. 
• Options
12.
edited January 2017

By the way I calculated the integral of the spectral irradiance between the frequencies 180.5 and 1797.62nm, also as a plausibility check for myself, it is: $$626.7597371000005 W/m^2$$ which sounds plausible since direct sun is about 1050 W/m2. I currently have to leave out the too small values (I.e. the fringes of the spectrum), since in the file the irradiances for these are written in exponentials and I would need to program a parser for that.

But this indicates that the rise in irradiation as mentioned above on the NASA page is eventually a bit outdated. That is I caluclated a difference of 0.6 for the 180.5 and 1797.62nm range, which refers rather to 0.1% in 13 years and not in 24 years, but as already said fluctuations do play a role here. Moreover for this special infrared range from 638.23nm to 981.15nm I get $$192.13849465000004W/m^2$$ which is in 13 ys a rise of 0.5% where most of it happened in the last 2-3 years and not 0.1% in 24 ys. How good are the theories about the lifetime of the sun?

Comment Source:By the way I calculated the integral of the spectral irradiance between the frequencies 180.5 and 1797.62nm, also as a plausibility check for myself, it is: $$626.7597371000005 W/m^2$$ which sounds plausible since <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance#Earth">direct sun is about 1050 W/m2</a>. I currently have to leave out the too small values (I.e. the fringes of the spectrum), since in the file the irradiances for these are written in exponentials and I would need to program a parser for that. But this indicates that the rise in irradiation as <a href="https://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/comment/15669/#Comment_15669">mentioned above</a> on the <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html">NASA</a> page is eventually a bit outdated. That is I caluclated a difference of 0.6 for the 180.5 and 1797.62nm range, which refers rather to 0.1% in 13 years and not in 24 years, but as already said fluctuations do play a role here. Moreover for this special infrared range from 638.23nm to 981.15nm I get $$192.13849465000004W/m^2$$ which is in 13 ys a <strong>rise of 0.5% where most of it happened in the last 2-3 years and not 0.1% in 24 ys</strong>. How good are the theories about the lifetime of the sun?
• Options
13.

" How good are the theories about the lifetime of the sun? "

I don't understand the basis of this question. If your implication is that you are detecting a reduction of the sun's output, then just apply some logic. If in fact we are seeing any reduction over a span of a few years, then it would be extremely worrisome for life on the planet over the foreseeable future.

Comment Source:> " How good are the theories about the lifetime of the sun? " I don't understand the basis of this question. If your implication is that you are detecting a reduction of the sun's output, then just apply some logic. If in fact we are seeing any reduction over a span of *a few years*, then it would be extremely worrisome for life on the planet over the foreseeable future. 
• Options
14.
edited January 2017

If in fact we are seeing any reduction over a span of a few years, then it would be extremely worrisome for life on the planet over the foreseeable future.

reduction of what? The sun is expected to become a red giant, i.e. to rather blow up first.

Well I really don't know much about the physics of the sun, and as said this fast change could be due to some fluctuation or a measurement error...it just came fastly into my mind that the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-alpha line lies in that range 650-950nm and given that these lines usually broaden due to the Dopplereffect and mostly experience a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift this might "bump" might be e.g. partially due to more recombinations of excessive hydrogen. I don't want to suggest that a phase of https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schalenbrennen has been reached, but I am asking myself why there could rather suddenly so much more irradiance in this H-alpha line region. I mean if this is not a measurement error then what would be your first idea bout possible causes?

Comment Source:>If in fact we are seeing any reduction over a span of a few years, then it would be extremely worrisome for life on the planet over the foreseeable future. reduction of what? The sun is expected to become a red giant, i.e. to rather blow up first. Well I really don't know much about the physics of the sun, and as said this fast change could be due to some fluctuation or a measurement error...it just came fastly into my mind that the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-alpha line lies in that range 650-950nm and given that these lines usually broaden due to the Dopplereffect and mostly experience a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift this might "bump" might be e.g. partially due to more recombinations of excessive hydrogen. I don't want to suggest that a phase of https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schalenbrennen has been reached, but I am asking myself why there could rather suddenly so much more irradiance in this H-alpha line region. I mean if this is not a measurement error then what would be your first idea bout possible causes?
• Options
15.

I forgot to point out that in the another range (top circle) in here the hydrogen line 486nm can be found.

Comment Source:I forgot to point out that in the another range (top circle) in <a href="https://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/comment/15692/#Comment_15692">here</a> the hydrogen line <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balmer_series">486nm</a> can be found. 
• Options
16.
edited February 2017

I wrote:

I mean if this is not a measurement error then what would be your first idea bout possible causes?

I now have found the ultraviolett measurements at the extreme ultraviolett variability experiment which is also at UColorado. The plots take at least as long as the Lisird ones plus the connection to UColorado from Europe may not the best, i.e. I could only look at very few samples. However I noticed that there seem to be a rather sudden increase in around mid 2013-2014 in irradiance in the line O III 526. Unfortunately the measurements seem to have had a major outage from beginning of Jun 2015 to around Dec. 20. 2016.

An increase in irradiance of an element might be due to more ionizing and recombination processes with that element in question, which in the turn appears mostly (?) due to more ionizing radiation or it could be due to an increase of the quantity of the element itself in the (more or less (depending on the nature of radiation)) outer layers of the sun or both.

So more ionizing radiation could mean that fusion processes take place in more "outer layers" but so I am also asking now myself wether it could be that there are more really hot regions in the sun so that eventually more Bethe-Weizäcker Cycle fusion instead of proton-proton fusion than before may take place. Apparently the Cycle produces O15 instead of O16 (see here or here (page 17)), i.e. there is one neutron missing to the normal oxygen atom. The O III line comes apparently from a doubly ionized oxygen where alone for line broadening reasons it seems still assumed that isotopes have the "same" spectral line. Here is the NIST data for atomic number 8, where the orbital transition for the 526 line is described. Any comments on that?

Comment Source:<a href="https://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/comment/15700/#Comment_15700">I wrote: </a> >I mean if this is not a measurement error then what would be your first idea bout possible causes? I now have found the <a href="http://lasp.colorado.edu/eve/data_access/service/plot_averages/index.html">ultraviolett measurements at the extreme ultraviolett variability experiment</a> which is also at UColorado. The plots take at least as long as the Lisird ones plus the connection to UColorado from Europe may not the best, i.e. I could only look at very few samples. However I noticed that there seem to be a rather sudden increase in around mid 2013-2014 in irradiance in the line O III 526. Unfortunately the measurements seem to have had a major outage from beginning of Jun 2015 to around Dec. 20. 2016. An increase in irradiance of an element might be due to more ionizing and recombination processes with that element in question, which in the turn appears mostly (?) due to more ionizing radiation or it could be due to an increase of the quantity of the element itself in the (more or less (depending on the nature of radiation)) outer layers of the sun or both. So more ionizing radiation could mean that fusion processes take place in more "outer layers" but so I am also asking now myself wether it could be that there are more really hot regions in the sun so that eventually more <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bethe-Weizs%C3%A4cher_cycle&redirect=no">Bethe-Weizäcker Cycle</a> fusion instead of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction">proton-proton fusion</a> than before may take place. Apparently the Cycle produces O15 instead of O16 (see <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1967/bethe-lecture.pdf">here</a> or <a href="https://books.google.de/books?id=45YpBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=%C3%9Cber+Elementumwandlungen+im+Inneren+der+Sterne+weizs%C3%A4cker&source=bl&ots=19RmCBYPLJ&sig=dsbyrrkobvWBtQPV1nNcRfgfdhk&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwinjMXtzP3RAhVCOpoKHd2DDbw4ChDoAQgwMAM#v=onepage&q=%C3%9Cber%20Elementumwandlungen%20im%20Inneren%20der%20Sterne%20weizs%C3%A4cker&f=false">here</a> (page 17)), i.e. there is one neutron missing to the normal oxygen atom. The O III line comes apparently from a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubly_ionized_oxygen">doubly ionized oxygen</a> where alone for line broadening reasons it seems still assumed that isotopes have the "same" spectral line. Here is the <a href="http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/ASD/lines1.pl?spectra=O+III&low_wl=500&upp_wn=&upp_wl=600&low_wn=&unit=1&submit=Retrieve+Data&de=0&java_window=3&java_mult=&format=0&line_out=0&en_unit=0&output=0&bibrefs=1&page_size=15&show_obs_wl=1&show_calc_wl=1&order_out=0&max_low_enrg=&show_av=2&max_upp_enrg=&tsb_value=0&min_str=&A_out=0&intens_out=on&max_str=&allowed_out=1&forbid_out=1&min_accur=&min_intens=&conf_out=on&term_out=on&enrg_out=on&J_out=on">NIST data</a> for atomic number 8, where the orbital transition for the 526 line is described. Any comments on that?
• Options
17.
edited February 2017

As you know I was sofar mostly handcrafting the images in javascript (see above) but that took quite long. So my daughter recommended me to use Julia with Juno and Atom instead. She hadn't found the time to work much with it, but apriori it looked good to her. So well. So I tried. And to make it short: Julia's documentation is not very didactive -mildly put. Julia is still under development so no wonder....but I think one should caution non software experts like me about that.

After exchanging tons of emails with Tim (who was e.g. on his usual weekly 7 hour train ride back from munich) with questions like "where is the description of how to use RGB hexcodes"? while staring at sentences like: "The storage order is 0xAARRGGBB, where RR means the red channel, GG means the green, and BB means the blue. AA is ignored for RGB24; there is also an ARGB32, for which that byte represents alpha." until Tim wrote back that unlike in CSS one doesn't use a # to decode RGB hexadecimals, but 0x.... I finally ended up with a not really satisfying visualization.

So in the end Tim jumped in when he came home last night, rewrote everything quickly and made a nice visualization app with Atom and Julia. So here now the results of the two Oxygen Lines which can be downloaded at the ultraviolett measurements at the extreme ultraviolett variability experiment .

Here the O III Line I was talking about above:

and here the O IV

I.e. the O IV Line looks strange in 2016. It looks a bit as if the instrument(s) have been regauged a couple of times, because of soaring values. Anyways both lines display a rise in oxygen since 2010 and both lines display strange behaviour in the last one/two/three years. The O III Line rises from around 2.5 to 3 mikroW/m^2, so thats an addition of about 20% while the O IV line starts in 2010 at around 22 mikroW/m^2 and you can see below yourself how it ends in 2017 at 32 mikroW/m^2, which would be roughly an additional 50% of the values in 2010. It should also be said that the peaks in the O IV data do not exceed 0.0439999997616 W/M^2, i.e. those peaks are not apriori some bullshit values.

Here the NIST Orbitals for the 554 line.

Here a Zoom into the O IV line:

Comment Source:As you know I was sofar mostly handcrafting the images in javascript (see above) but that took quite long. So my daughter recommended me to use Julia with Juno and Atom instead. She hadn't found the time to work much with it, but apriori it looked good to her. So well. So I tried. And to make it short: Julia's documentation is not very didactive -mildly put. Julia is still under development so no wonder....but I think one should caution non software experts like me about that. After exchanging tons of emails with Tim (who was e.g. on his usual weekly 7 hour train ride back from munich) with questions like "where is the description of how to use RGB hexcodes"? while staring at <a href="https://github.com/JuliaGraphics/ColorTypes.jl">sentences</a> like: "The storage order is 0xAARRGGBB, where RR means the red channel, GG means the green, and BB means the blue. AA is ignored for RGB24; there is also an ARGB32, for which that byte represents alpha." until Tim wrote back that unlike in CSS one doesn't use a # to decode RGB hexadecimals, but 0x.... I finally ended up with a not really satisfying visualization. So in the end Tim jumped in when he came home last night, rewrote everything quickly and made a nice visualization app with Atom and Julia. So here now the results of the two Oxygen Lines which can be downloaded at the <a href="http://lasp.colorado.edu/eve/data_access/service/plot_averages/index.html"> ultraviolett measurements at the extreme ultraviolett variability experiment </a>. Here the O III Line I was talking about above: ![OIIISauerstoff526Linie](http://www.randform.org/blog/wp-content/2017/02/OIII526Line.png) and here the O IV ![OIVSauerstoff554Linie](http://www.randform.org/blog/wp-content/2017/02/OIV554Line.png) I.e. the O IV Line looks strange in 2016. It looks a bit as if the instrument(s) have been regauged a couple of times, because of soaring values. Anyways both lines display a rise in oxygen since 2010 and both lines display strange behaviour in the last one/two/three years. The O III Line rises from around 2.5 to 3 mikroW/m^2, so thats an addition of about 20% while the O IV line starts in 2010 at around 22 mikroW/m^2 and you can see below yourself how it ends in 2017 at 32 mikroW/m^2, which would be roughly an additional 50% of the values in 2010. It should also be said that the peaks in the O IV data do not exceed 0.0439999997616 W/M^2, i.e. those peaks are not apriori some bullshit values. Here the <a href="http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/ASD/energy1.pl">NIST Orbitals for the 554 line.</a> Here a Zoom into the O IV line: ![OIVSauerstoff554LinieZoom](http://www.randform.org/blog/wp-content/2017/02/OIVLine2016Zoom.png)
• Options
18.
edited September 2017

The O IV 554 can (now?) also be viewed within the TIMED mission: http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/data/timed_see_lines_l3a/ It has been increasing from 2003 -2012 (remark in between there was apriori a solar minimum). After 2012 the calibration of TIMED is not good enough, as written in the description. However the O III 704 Line doesnt show a clear increase from 2003-2012 (it seems a bit elevated in between).

The H-I-1216 Line at TIMED looks though very different from the lines around 1216 nm in SORCE, which probably displays how difficult and error prone calibration and background adjustments really are.

Anyways concerning the oxygen one could also mention the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_process (I said above I dont want to suggest Schalenbrennen, but how big is the probability for alpha process in isolated bubbles?)

There are 4 Carbon lines on TIMED they are all declining, apart from the 1561 line which seems to stay more or less constant.

Another remark in the small circle above in https://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/comment/15692/#Comment_15692 the He-I- lines 537 and 587 are located, however in the TIMED data only the 537 line increased. In SORCE both lines increase until 2015 and have been declining sharply after that. I dont know in which process these isotopes may be occurring.

Comment Source:The O IV 554 can (now?) also be viewed within the TIMED mission: http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/data/timed_see_lines_l3a/ It has been increasing from 2003 -2012 (remark in between there was apriori a solar minimum). After 2012 the calibration of TIMED is not good enough, as written in the description. However the O III 704 Line doesnt show a clear increase from 2003-2012 (it seems a bit elevated in between). The H-I-1216 Line at TIMED looks though very different from the lines around 1216 nm in SORCE, which probably displays how difficult and error prone calibration and background adjustments really are. Anyways concerning the oxygen one could also mention the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_process (I said above I dont want to suggest Schalenbrennen, but how big is the probability for alpha process in isolated bubbles?) There are 4 Carbon lines on TIMED they are all declining, apart from the 1561 line which seems to stay more or less constant. Another remark in the small circle above in https://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/comment/15692/#Comment_15692 the He-I- lines 537 and 587 are located, however in the TIMED data only the 537 line increased. In SORCE both lines increase until 2015 and have been declining sharply after that. I dont know in which process these isotopes may be occurring.