Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Yesterday
  3. I believe there may have been a stealth CME last night. Looks like it鈥檚 relaxed again, most of the active regions shifted to coronal holes. Very weird.
  4. Last week
  5. In order to 'double dip', the Adjusted F10.7cm Flux will need to sustain daily values in the 65-66 range (or lower), as that is what was observed in Nov. 2018 when the current low for this solar minimum transition was established: It appeared the currently 'bald sun' was going to relax back to those '66 levels' a couple of days ago at the end of 10-10-19; and yet, the next day there was almost a 2-point pop back up into the 68's: Could yesterday's bump be attributable to something we can observe over at SDO/helioviewer.org? For example, was it due to the polar jets and a large prominence that danced on the NE limb for a day (figure below)? If so, even without sunspots, are the polar crown filaments/prominences too numerous now, such that we will not see the 'double dip' in the F10.7cm? It is hard to say...for were we not previously seeing similar activity (figure below) on the solar disc back during the time period when the low in the Adjusted F10.7cm Flux was established?
  6. (Source of graph: NWU Space Research Neutron Monitors) (to be continued)
  7. Earlier
  8. I wish to try and clarify the above statement. The title of that poster (below), was "Physics-Based Approach to Predict the Solar Activity Cycles": Additionally, the poster (below) with very similar content [including the statement, "the mean sunspot number at the maximum will be about 90 (for the v2.0 sunspot number series) with the error estimate ~15%"] was published on December 13, 2018 [for American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall Meeting 2018; December 10, 2018 - December 14, 2018; Washington, DC; United States], titled, "Synergy of Observations and Dynamo Models to Understand and Predict Solar Activity Cycles": From the figure (repeated below) above the "Conclusions" in both of those posters, it indicates their SC25 prediction was based on data up to 2017.5: The more recent paper previously cited in this thread titled, Solar Activity Forecast for the Next Decade, given at a presentation on June 09, 2019, [stating, "the mean hemispheric sunspot number at the maximum will be about 50 (for the v2.0 sunspot number series) with an error estimate of ~15%"], from which I took the SC25 forecast parameters, was quite likely using updated data. That forecast of "about 50" is also found in the following two more recently published posters: Global Evolution of Solar Magnetic Fields and Prediction of Solar Activity Cycles published June 30, 2019 [for IAU Symposium 354: Solar and Stellar Magnetic Fields: Origins and Manifestations; June 30, 2019 - July 06, 2019; Copiapo; Chile] Application of Synoptic Magnetograms for Prediction of Solar Activity Using Ensemble Kalman Filter published August 05, 2019 [for Solar Heliospheric Interplanetary Environment (SHINE) Workshop; August 05, 2019 - August 09, 2019; Boulder, CO; United States].
  9. Before updating this thread with current 'cosmic ray' data, here are a couple of key slides from that video I posted a few months ago:
  10. Guys, thank you for responding, because it may have been the further impetus I needed to look into her forecast further. After reviewing her presentation again, I don't think she mentions the black lines. Based on her paper from 2008, those black lines (may) represent what they call a "reference solution", which is just one step in the model's production of an eventual forecast, which apparently is both the high fidelity jagged red lines in the top slide, and the smoothed red line in the bottom slide. She states they predicted SC24 pretty well in 2008, and their model may be able to look-ahead eight years into the future, and possibly longer. I have a lot more respect for her forecast now, and she may come out looking like a genius by the time SC25 is over.馃槉
  11. Looks like she got 24 pretty close. Maybe she made some theoretical updates over the years and never updated the old 23 data?
  12. That鈥檚 a good observation and indeed true, I assume they don鈥檛 explain why their model is a bit off in earlier cycles. So we can take that 25th cycle prediction as a bit off course as well...
  13. This morning I revisited the 'Kitiashvili/NASA Forecast', and something caught my eye. Below are a couple of slides from her presentation: If the black line (in the above slides) is her model's prediction, doesn't it significantly undershoot the strength of SC23?
  14. Reading the description you linked, it says: The objective of the mission is to perform close-up, high-resolution studies of the Sun and its inner heliosphere. The new understanding will help answer these questions: How and where do the solar wind plasma and magnetic field originate in the corona? How do solar transients drive heliospheric variability? How do solar eruptions produce energetic particle radiation that fills the heliosphere? How does the solar dynamo work and drive connections between the Sun and the heliosphere? The figure I linked showing the polar X-ray jets was from a paper highlighting the use of the Hinode satellite to answer those questions, too.馃 This solar minimum is turning out to be deeper than what I initially thought it was (based on my observation of the Bremen Composite months ago). The Lyman-Alpha Composite has not been at its current levels--for such a sustained period of time--since its inception. If this minimum 'double dips', in order that the 'Adjusted Flux rule' (I cited earlier in this thread 馃槉) is not violated, then we very well may be headed into a very weak solar cycle, at the NASA/Kitiashvili prediction levels (which is discussed in the thread titled, Solar Cycle 25 Predictions/Forecasts by 1. 'The Panel' & 2. NASA).
  15. Ahh yes that鈥檚 definitely it. It was quite large in size, at least 4 馃寧. I find the polar regions of the sun very interesting, been wondering if there鈥檚 some vortex structure like Saturn (amongst some other issues). Too bad we won鈥檛 find out until the ESA/NASA Solar Orbiter arrives at the higher latitudes in 2026. After the dynamics that showed up at Jupiter鈥檚 poles when the first Juno pics started flowing back, I think anything could be possible. I wonder if we will still be in solar minimum then? 馃槑
  16. Hmmm....maybe you were seeing polar X-ray jets? These are described in the following: (source)
  17. SOLAR WIND I just came across a tidbit on the deeper science ("Hinode" satellite reveals the origin of the solar wind) that might be of interest to some readers. It would be nice to have a better english translation: High speed solar wind has the same elemental composition ratio as the photosphere from the polar region. Slow solar wind erupts from the equatorial region at the same elemental composition ratio as the corona.
  18. One of the more concrete things we know regarding solar activity is that the flux and sunspot number have historically mirrored each other very well; this is demonstrated mathematically with either a linear regression, or a polynomial fit (for a little more finesse), per discussion in this paper, "The Solar Flux and Sunspot Number; A Long-Trend Analysis". Now then, Svaalgard (as pointed out above in his six year old paper) was indicating that the relationship between the two had "steadily deteriorated in the past decade to the point where the sunspot number for a given flux has decreased by about a third." But the more recent paper from 2018 I just cited points out that there was only a blip in the correlation for both SC24 and SC21. Generally, it is observed that the rate of rise in solar flux at the beginning of a solar cycle correlates with the strength of the cycle, i.e., the Waldemeir Effect; strong cycles rise to their maximum faster than weak cycles. ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Today the Observed Flux and Adjusted Flux were equivalent (proceeding into 'the Crossover' discussed at the beginning of this thread)::
  19. Does the flux rise dramatically at the end of minimum or is it gradual? There are a few small active regions but nothing to write home about. I assume this is breaking all current models?
  20. "The 10.7cm Solar Flux is currently one of the best indices of solar activity we have. It now forms a consistent, uninterrupted database covering more than 50 years." (link) The following statement has held true for the F10.7cm Flux since its inception in 1944: "The Solar Minimum Nadir in a solar cycle's solar minimum period has always occurred within 3 months of the minimum value of the monthly average of Adjusted F10.7cm." Up to this point in the current SC 24/25 solar cycle transition, the minimum value of the monthly average of Adjusted F10.7cm occurred 10 11 months ago, back in 2018 December November. Obviously, in order for the above statement to hold true for the current cycle transition, we will have to see the Adjusted F10.7cm proceed to a sustained period of low values we have not yet seen in this cycle. 馃お So then, just how deep is this solar minimum going to go?馃槼
  21. Currently the right-to-left languages are unsupported, we would have to change/update many items to support those languages. We will add it to our development plans for a future implementation. Once we have the right-to-left support in place, those languages can be added.
  22. I wonder if it is possible to support your translation work into Japanese. However, how much is the workload ?
  23. For instance, could the recent elevation in the Lyman-Alpha be due to an increase in the explosions in the transition region that are smaller than flares (but occur more often)? If so, maybe that would provide an important puzzle piece heralding the Solar Minimum (Nadir). Additionally, is it possible that an elevation in the Lyman-Alpha could be coming from other sources besides our sun (e.g., Early Universe is Glowing with Lyman-alpha Emission)?
  24. I looks well trought. Lorenzo hurricane is heading Ireland, also Dorian headed North.
  25. An update was released for iPadOS which fixes a display issue on iPads with iPadOS 13.1.
  26. Hi Philip, welcome to the forum. Although it was indeed a rapid "jump" in elevation, nonetheless, the elevated values lasted several days, so it was not, as you say, "a near instantaneous fallback". Unless one has some physical concrete explanation for an 'error', it would be premature to say these spikes have "no physical basis", regardless of how many days the values remained elevated (e.g., witness the first two-day 'spike' on July 31-Aug 1 that has not been removed from the data). As an example of a potential explanation for these spikes, it is a valid question as to whether recurring 'bright points' (in the corona), or something else, could be a reason for the measured elevation reflected in the data, besides 'instrument error'. Do you find it even more interesting now that elevated data-points have again shown up in the most recent data? (See next figure.)
  27. Below is an update to the storm: Although the magnetic polarities are following a similar pattern to last time, the magnetic magnitudes, in all of the orthogonal axis, are not as great this time. The rate of velocity increase was greater this time. Keep in mind the data considered is ahead of (before impacting) earth's magnetosphere (although the magnetosphere interaction might possibly affect the observed magnetic magnitudes), and there has been some change in orientation of the 'earthen magnet' since last time: (image source).
  28. From what I can derive, those spikes are probably erroneous. That was a near instantaneous jump/fallback without physical basis.
  29. Our current active Spanish translator hasn't made the translation up to date yet, but you can always assist in completing it. If you're up for it, let me know and I'll give you all what you need to know to get started.
  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.