Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. The following plot is the complete CRaTER (a platform orbiting the moon) record starting in 2010. The source of the plot was this article. The bottom plot is ground-based data from the Oulu Cosmic Ray Station, plotted over a similar timeframe. A modulation in flux during 2017 is observed in both plots.
  3. Yesterday
  4. No intrusion of any outside source. It is a Static placed compass in the same place for a couple of years with nothing changing around it. Now that I have answered your questions maybe you can explain your direction towards outside influence disturbance affecting what I see instead of of being more curious about why it is happening, not a very Scientific approach to something unusual.
  5. Was the compass far away from any electronic device and or magnets? These can influence the needle of the compass. If it was a digital compass, there is always interference of the device itself.
  6. I've been taking a Static Compass I have set up and I have noticed Huge Compass movements, most recently 2 days ago my compass moved 38 degrees. I report to the USGS but no one knows why this happens and I have been noting a correlation with Earthquake disturbances and now this huge compass movement then there was the Power outage in NY. Strange things I can't explain. JET
  7. How many times have you heard or seen it repeated online that, "We are at an all-time high (at least since the space-age) for Cosmic Rays!" Look at the evidence closely in the following video, and decide for yourself. CosmicRays vs. SolarMinimum.mp4 The Neutron Monitor used in the evaluation was the Oulu Cosmic Ray Station, which is probably the most cited in the scientific literature. One can check Neutron Monitors all around the world via the Neutron Monitor Database. Here is a map of the various stations. This link is where one can create their own plots, over various time periods.
  8. Last week
  9. In the following video (clipped from this source) Dr. Strong went through the exercise of comparing solar cycle amplitude with the previous cycle's duration. Solar Cycle Amplitude vs. Duration .mp4
  10. this is positively true. I will feel electricity build up within my body when a CME or other solor flux occurs. (it's almost like on Dragon Ball Z)
  11. I don't remember where I read about that thought it was on SIDCs website somewhere but cant find it. Might have been a scientific paper. Could be mixing up things. Anyway, thought this graph was interesting showing the historical 10.7cm radio flux where short or prolonged periods of ''quiet radio sun'' do seem to tell a bit about the next cycle. Check also http://www.stce.be/news/417/welcome.html Also a big thanks to northwind-adventurer for chiming in with his excellent post.
  12. From Extract of a Letter from Prof. R. Wolf, of Zurich, to Mr. Carrington, dated Jan. 12, 1859: , Well, maybe it is a little (a lot?) more complicated than that, but we have since had K. Birkeland, the findings of I. Langmuir, the theories of H. Alfvén and the development of supercomputers. Maybe it is time the concept of 'planetary clocking' influencing solar activity warrants considerably more attention?
  13. Thank you northwind-adventurer. Wherein we read, "Including the evidence from the recent heliospheric magnetic field [that also is a precursor of the cycle] leads to an estimate for SC25 approximately midway between cycles 20 and 24." Midway between SC20 (156.6 Smoothed Max ISN) and SC24 (116.4 Smoothed Max ISN) gives 136.5, which does not even fall within The Panel's Peak Range prediction of 95-to-130. So if the method is also the one endorsed & used by NOAA for early predictions, a question arises as to why 'The Panel prediction' was biased lower than Svalgaard's method? 
  14. There is an accepted methodology called the solar cycle 'precursor method' scientists use when predicting solar cycles. Generally speaking, they are able to predict more accurately the size of the coming solar cycle once the solar minimum has passed, usually by 1-2 years. This method basically means that if the solar minimum phase was shorter (300-400 spotless days, or 1-2 years), then the following solar cycle will be more active than average. Likewise, if the solar minimum was longer (600-900 spotless days, 2-3 years) then the following solar cycle will be less active than average. This data and more is on the Belgian solar activity website spotless days page http://www.sidc.be/silso/spotless. The only drawback of this method is that it can only predict the solar cycle several years after the solar minimum. In terms of making earlier predictions (before the solar cycle minimum), the most successful theory so far has been developed by Stanford University solar physics professor Leif Svalgaard. This is the Solar Polar Fields method. At Stanford they have been monitoring the strength of the solar polar fields since 1976 and found that this can predict the coming solar cycle more accurately than other methods ahead of time. Basically, the stronger the solar polar fields are at solar minimum, the stronger the coming solar cycle will be, and vice versa. In this current solar minimum, the polar fields are a little stronger than at the previous solar minimum, but still weaker than other solar cycles. This has led Professor Svalgaard to predict that Solar Cycle 25 will be marginally stronger than the Solar Cycle 24 just passed. The solar polar fields method is also the one endorsed & used by NOAA for early predictions. The values of the solar polar fields can be monitored at the Stanford Wilcox Solar Observatory webpage http://wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html Below is a graph showing Svalgaard's prediction - and the related article is here https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2018/06/09/leif-svalgaard-reveals-his-solar-cycle-25-prediction-at-last/ And here is a statement from Leif Svalgaard http://lasp.colorado.edu/media/projects/SORCE/meetings/2018/Oral_Presentations/6_c_Svalgaard_Contri.pdf
  15. Plotted below are two solar cycles that meet The Panel's SC25 Prediction/Forecast. Which cycle appears to be more 'interesting' from the perspective of potential space-weather consequences? Do we readily elicit a response to the question if we plot them again as the 'monthly-mean' instead of 'smoothed' (below)? The following two figures describe the planetary position at the 'Start' of SC14: The following figure describes the planetary position at the 'Start' of SC24: The following figure describes the planetary position at the Tentative 'Start' (i.e., Jan 2019) of SC25: Food for thought?
  16. You need to learn that a magnetic field detector is not a Radiation detector. Stop your foolish madness. Your hand feels uncomfortable from holding the meter mot fabricated "magnetic" field radiation.
  17. Marcel, over on the Solar Cycle 25 has already "started". thread, you state, Do you care to elaborate further here on this point?
  18. Geo magnetic, storms, solar flares and he streams with low kp are the trigger for migraine and seizure. Magnetic reconnection (Bz) is the trigger for pain and psychosis. This is the primary trigger for these episodes, we are a closed system, cellular damage can not mitigate the flux, this is a fact which is proven by using a zero guess chamber to prevent or stop a seizure, any cascade for that matter, including stroke. The body does not create its own medical episode from nothing, show me a medical episode where the above factors are missing.... should be easy since magnetic reconnection only happens 4 times a day and the KP is below 3 most of the time in minimum. I have documented thousands of cases, space weather causes all episodes... period. If I slap you in the face and cause a bloody nose you can't say that I caused it just because I slapped you. So got to love how overdone that correlation cause line is used.. used when someone does not want to engage in hypothesis or possibilities, they love to stand on the banks, sometimes they are in the stream. But like both, they pat each other on the back, while having contempt for the outsider who could not possibly know what he is talking about... nothing could be further from the truth, we are always ahead of our time. Btw. Correlation can be the apparent cause when the correlation goes well beyond chance, it will take you further upstream.... Sometimes we have to take our head out of our constipated ass or nothing new will be discovered, remember nobody in the "main stream" or on the banks discovered anything.
  19. The average Time of Rise for all of the past 24 solar cycles is 4.4 years, per List_of_solar_cycles. However, we've chosen to be selective of the cycles to include in the computation of the average. Below is a plot of the 'weak' solar cycles. These are the seven (7) cycles that met The Panel's Peak Range prediction (as discussed in this thread: Solar Cycle 25 Predictions/Forecasts by 'The Panel' & NASA.) We can toss out SC5, since it did not meet The Panel's Rise Time to Solar Maximum prediction. The average Time of Rise for the remaining six (6) cycles is 5.2 yrs. A three-year window for Peak was selected by The Panel in their prediction, and thus, our forecast is for the Solar Maximum (Peak) to occur within a three-year window centered around the 5.2 yr projected Time of Rise.
  20. Earlier
  21. Hi, is the radio flux presented on your solar-activity page the absolute number or is it the adjusted one?
  22. This first 'headline' post in this thread will contain a summary of the prediction arrived at by concensus of this community forum. Check back from time to time as it is updated. Posts that follow this first 'headline' post will give supporting evidence as to how the consensus was arrived at. Solar Minimum (i.e., the Nadir of Cycle 24 which is the "Start" of Cycle 25): before March 2019, and likely January or February 2019. (Note, this is based on the "Bremen Metric" discussed in this thread, Solar Cycle 25 has already "started", in combination with up-to-date review of the ISN Daily Total, Monthly Mean Total, and 13-month Smoothed Monthly Total.) Solar Maximum (Peak): within period Nov. 2021-to-Nov. 2024. (Note, that is 5.2 yrs +/- 1.5 yrs from Solar Minimum.) Sunspot Peak Range: 100-to-135. (Note, with a 20% chance > 135, and 5% chance <100. These numbers will likely be modified with further review of the evidence. Current consensus is biased toward SC25 being as strong or stronger than SC24.)
  23. Interesting. I'd love to see more folks utilizing databases available to us. @ CDR Solar Child Electromagnetic energy, if truly traveling at the speed of light takes about 1.4 seconds to reach earth. On the other hand, physical material from CME's: One super fast instance was recorded at just ~18 hours. Varies by speed. The charges vary, negative or positive or both. Mind-bogglingly detailed data is available online for all of it, just not made super easy or standardized yet to pull or process. @ RachelDLS "Allergic to the 21st Century". Beats my "allergic to velcro" problem. Thank you for that. > "Correlation does not imply causation" We were all born as scientists. I noticed that knocking my food onto to the floor from the high-chair correlates with mom's distress, but correlation does not imply causation so therefore just keep doing it? Usually in saying this dismissive token, it is a way for people to devalidate a theory as meaningless so they need not gather information. It's like saying, just because geomagnetic storms hit us a few days after CME's (correlation) does not mean the sun was responsible (cause). Money doesn't cause happiness. Reply: Neither does poverty. Part of the scientific method is to observe something, form a hypothesis, gather information and in that, correlations are important, then next steps, further analysis, measurements to verify can logically be more cost effective, targeted. You don't just dismiss them. To chide the gathering of information and sharing/publishing a potential conclusion--to criticize that--is the opposite of science, it's anti-science but makes people feel lofty. I told my gf a test showed me to be borderline Aspergers. She's Brazilian and replied, what is Asparagus Syndrome? Adding your seizure records as a column to online CME data (and/or geomagnetic storm data), precise correlation values can be obtained quickly with `pandas` corr() method. I use python. Start with csv, use pd.read_csv(), then corr(), should save newbies some time. One difficulty in quantifying CME's vs seizure date/time in the case of delay (material reaching us over days vs the near-instantaneous electromagnetic pop at the time of the solar event) is that they sometimes thump more directly against the magnetosphere (see below). "Substorms" are still a mystery for example, so correlations by scientists in the hope of understanding them lead to the launching of new satellites to take new types of measurements. This content above shows a mystery, peer-reviewed (in comments), correlations, and it merits a budget for study/measurements, the launching of a mission to understand it. Pretty sure everyone can enjoy these two videos: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/in-solar-system-s-symphony-earth-s-magnetic-field-drops-the-beat I had not connected the dots pointed out by Michael and others so I appreciate the reports. I'm fairly certain that more-seizures-than-thought relate to toxoplasma gondii in the brain, `eating` gaba (my case). Contrary to the oft-repeated 30-yr-old falsehood, you don't have to be sick or pregnant to be harmed by it. So with Michael gimmeson's observed likely-correlation in mind, my initial hypothesis would be that the aberrant solar activity might agitate the microbes causing more movement sparking sudden cascading discharges, and/or via the unnatural chemical imbalances caused by toxo's presence in brain matter. NOAA has the near earth data. NASA beyond that including solar.
  24. Even though we may improve our knowledge of the inner-workings of the sun, that is not going to provide "perfect" predictions for the following two reasons: We will never have perfect knowledge of the inner workings of the sun (i.e., the solar dynamo physical processes). The 'solar activity' (e.g., Bright Spot, Active Region, Coronal Hole) manifestation is a function of probabilistic/stochastic processes. Consider a 'lava-lamp' analogy, as suggested by Dr. Skov, which I will now embellish. We may know (or at least have a pretty good idea) of the duty-cycle of the lava-lamp's heater. We may have external sensors measuring temperature and magnetic fields. We may have a historical record of the lava lamp's visible behavior. Nonetheless, we are not going to predict with perfect precision the size and number of the lava lamp bubbles that will happen on such-and-such a day next week. However, as our knowledge and measurement precision of the lava-lamp parameters increase, we can model it pretty well, though it will still be subject to probabilistic/stochastic processes, and thus, (even if we had perfect knowledge, down to quantum mechanics granularity, of all matter-interaction in the universe) any predictions can only be framed within a certain probability. And then there are factors that may be affecting those probabilistic/stochastic processes that we hadn't taken into account in our model. For example, suppose our electrical grid is providing 'clean' repeatable sinusoidal AC energy reliably for years on-end, and after stacking up months of reliable lava-lamp predictions, our AC electricity house-current starts getting 'dirty' due to replacement of generators up-line. That is when we may find out that any perturbation in the AC house-current has slight influence on the performance of the lava-lamp's heater, enough to measurably influence the stochastic behavior of the lava-lamp.
  25. It’s always the same at the end of a solar cycle, always a vast amount of scientist with different outcome on the prediction of the next cycle. The methods they use are always based on good research and data but still, the inner workings of the Sun are still so much unknown that it can’t be predicted in a perfect way. It’s good that there are multiple predictions to see what methods they used and how they think it will evolve. It can improve the predictions of others and improve them. With the sc24 predictions we started the cycle with two versions because they couldn’t agree and “the board” chose the stronger and a weaker cycle for sc24. It was untill after the long minimum that they abandoned the stronger cycle. Just to say that there is no good method for a prediction and you better wait and see what time brings...
  26. The chart below, List of Solar Cycles, lists the past 24 Solar Cycles. It is annotated to indicate which cycles would have met the Panel's Peak Range prediction, the Rise Time to Solar Maximum, and both criteria. Seven (7) of the 24 cycles would have met the Panel's Peak Range prediction (after rounding off the Smoothed Maximum ISN to no decimal places). ALL but one of the 24 cycles would have met the Panel's Rise Time to Solar Maximum prediction. Six (6) of the previous 24 cycles met both the Peak Range and the Rise Time to Solar Maximum prediction. Clearly, the Rise Time to Solar Maximum prediction was so broad that it would be difficult for Cycle 25 to not meet that window. Nonetheless, the Panel's prediction on Peak Range is definitely biased toward a weak cycle. This is specified in the text of their conclusion, "This is well below the average number of sunspots...We expect Solar Cycle 25 will be very similar to Cycle 24: another fairly weak cycle, preceded by a long, deep minimum...Cycle 25 will be comparable in size to Cycle 24." Before I proceed with the Kitiashvili (NASA) prediction, I came across the following document produced by The Panel, which will help explain the discrepancy above in Peak Range (i.e, 82 sunspots versus 116 sunspots, etc.): https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/images/u59/10%20Lisa%20Upton%20Official.pdf Here are a few slides from that document: I'm calling this the NASA prediction, since NASA is using it in a news release (cited below) on their website. This prediction is somewhat baffling (to me), because I found two different predictions online. That may have something to do with the interchange of SSN V1 and SSN V2, over the years, in her model, or possibly it is related to updates of the model as time progresses and more data is input into the model. I will restrain from further conjecture, and just provide a summation of what I found. The most recent prediction was taken from a Kitiashvili presentation found here, starting @ 15:00: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W55Zst_ruGA The following document appears to match the slides in that video: https://aas.org/files/resources/kitiashvili.pptx Kitiashvili Summary (from June 2019 Presentation) Solar Minimum (Period duration): 2019-2021. (Note, this implies Solar Cycle 25 "onset" (i.e., the point at which activity picks up appreciably) is predicted to occur no sooner than early 2022.) Solar Maximum Peak: in 2024-2025. Sunspot Peak Range: about 50 with an error estimate of ~15-30%. (Note, per the graph snapshot below, from Slide 10 in her June 2019 Presentation, the Peak Range appears to be ~43-65.) Additional Highlights: The cycle will likely have a double-Maximum extending over 2-2.5 years. Conclusions from the presentation confirm the above very low cycle prediction, stating, "Solar Cycle 25 (Maximum)...is expected to be significantly weaker than that of the current cycle." The following article, https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/solar-activity-forecast-for-next-decade-favorable-for-exploration, pertaining to Kitiashvili's forecast, states: "The forecast for the next solar cycle says it will be the weakest of the last 200 years." (I wish to add that a previous prediction, from a Kitiashvili 'poster' dated July 30, 2018, found here https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20180007221, stated, "mean sunspot number at the maximum will be about 90 (for the v2.0 sunspot number series) with the error estimate ~15%.)
  27. SOLAR CYCLE 25 PREDICTION from the SOLAR CYCLE 25 Prediction Panel https://www.weather.gov/news/190504-sun-activity-in-solar-cycle Solar Minimum (i.e., the Nadir of Cycle 24 which is the "Start" of Cycle 25): late in 2019 or 2020. (Note, this is a ~1.33yr* Minimum Window; *we'll assume "late in 2019" means sometime in the period Sept-Dec 2019, and "2020" means sometime in 2020. However, based on clarification from the silso.be article---***linked below, which states, "minimum between the current cycle 24 and cycle 25 is predicted to occur between July 2019 and September 2020"---this gives a 1.17yr Minimum Window.) Solar Maximum (Peak): between 2023 and 2026. (Note, let's assume they mean between the beginning of 2023 and the beginning of 2026, which is a 3yr Window Peak; however, combined with the 1.17yr Minimum Window, this means they predict Solar Maximum to occur (i.e., the Rise Time) sometime within 2.25-to-6.5 years after Solar Minimum.) Sunspot Peak Range: 95-to-130. (**What does this mean? Are they referring to the peak of the "Monthly Mean", or the peak of the "Smoothed-Monthly"?) **I wish to nail down the answer to this question. Later that article states, "Solar Cycle 24 reached its maximum - the period when the Sun is most active - in April 2014 with a peak average of 82 sunspots." However, from this article on the same subject,http://sidc.be/silso/node/152, we hopefully get some clarification, wherein it states, "This prediction is now given in the scale of sunspot number Version 2. Therefore, solar cycle 25 will be similar to cycle 24, which peaked at 116 in April 2014." ***They also gave clarification on the Minimum Target in that article: "The next minimum between the current cycle 24 and cycle 25 is predicted to occur between July 2019 and September 2020." The plot above on the left for Cycle 24 represents the "Monthly Mean" (faint Black Line) and the 13-month "Smoothed-Monthly" (Red Line) Sunspot Number. We can inspect that plot further, downloading data from here: http://sidc.be/silso/datafiles Here is the data plotted, after downloading:
  28. Hi Nogar, I hope you can share and contribute here what you know on the topic. I'm pretty sure what I unveil above has never been published, at least to that detail. But I'm certainly open to being proven wrong.
  1. Load more activity
  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?
    Sign Up
  • 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.