If a spot forms on the sun and NOAA doesn't number it, does it really exist? I forgot to add this to my list of grievances against the official Sunspot Number. Strangely, they actually refer to 2 new active regions, yet decline to number them. Is there like a 'two-flare minimum' to join the club or what? The hi-latitude spot alone throws the daily sunspot number off by more than ten points....jes' sayin'. By the way, I mentioned this spot 24-hrs. ago and it's been growing since then.New (as of yesterday) AR 166?-
.24 hr Summary...
Solar activity was very low. The largest flare of the period was a B7
flare at 26/0301 UTC from Region 1660 (N13W81)
. Slight growth was
observed in Region 1661 during the period. New flux emerged in the
southeast quadrant and was numbered Region 1663 (S10E46). New flux was
also emerging near N09E34 and N31W36 and is being monitored
Earth-directed CMEs were observed during the period.
[link to www.swpc.noaa.gov
] NOAA wrong again!
The B7.1 flare was from 1663..."I seen it wid me own peepers!" and Lockheed confirms:
[link to www.lmsal.com
Joint USAF/NOAA Solar Region Summary
SRS Number 27 Issued at 0030Z on 27 Jan 2013
Report compiled from data received at SWO on 26 Jan
I. Regions with Sunspots. Locations Valid at 26/2400Z
Nmbr Location Lo Area Z LL NN Mag Type
1660 N13W81 065 0100 Dao 10 06 Beta
1661 N15E08 337 0030 Cro 05 05 Beta
1662 N28E28 317 0050 Hsx 02 01 Alpha1663 S10E46 299 0010 Bxo 03 03 Beta