Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Yesterday
  2. Great stuff, folks!👍 Let's kick this around some more, and maybe we can eventually come up with a consensus we are all comfortable with. I wish to now quickly drop something here that I think is worthy of much deeper consideration. Below is a snapshot of a magnetogram which I. Kitiashvili presented in her presentation (which I linked to on the other forecast thread ) : : Below I've added some some annotations to the same magnetogram: Some things I quickly annotated are: The Red vertical lines are the Solar Minimums. The slope and character (e.g., their length) of the drawn lines (these are subject to some human fudging). The location of the bifurcation points, and their character (e.g., the angles created between the bifurcated lines). The intensity of magnetic poleward flow. The intensity of the Magnetic Poles, particularly at Solar Minimum. Reflecting upon the top (non-annotated) graph, here are some things that seem to stick out: (A) SolarCycle24 appears significantly magnetically weaker, overall, compared to the other cycles. (B) The intensity (magnitude) of poleward magnetic flow during SC24 was considerably less compared to the other cycles. (C) Compared to the previous cycles' solar minimums, the current magnetic strength at the poles (particularly the north pole) appears drastically weaker. Agree or disagree? Comments? The first comment that comes to mind is that the measurements between the cycles were not taken with the same satellite, and thus, possibly prone to calibration inconsistency. Well, hopefully the scientists have carefully taken that into account (a reason they get paid the 'big bucks', right? 🤣).
  3. FWIW, the AP index minimum tends to lag the sunspot minimum by 1-1.5 years, so the current values might not be applicable in time. I’m willing to bet the AP index minimum will not be reached until 2021.
  4. Another predictive method worth looking into, and has been moderately successful over the years is the Geomagnetic Activity Prediction Method. Ahluwalia (1998) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253586281_The_predicted_size_of_cycle_23_based_on_the_inferred_three-cycle_quasi-periodicity_of_the_planetary_index_Ap Basically, it uses an equation of geomagnetic activity smoothed 'AP index' at each solar minimum to predict the sunspot number at the next maximum roughly 4 years later. Using this method, one can predict the sunspot number for Solar Cycles 23, 24, and possibly even 25, for which the data wasn't available yet in 1998. SC had a prediction of 119. The smoothed sunspot number in early 2000 (SC23 max) was 124. Note that these sunspot numbers are the official Wolf (or international) sunspot numbers. There was a revision made in 2015 increasing the entire sunspot series by a factor of 1.6 - That's lead to some confusion as all the predictions and measurements before then used the original Wolf numbers (not the revised). Using this method, we can try to predict SC24: 16.2(AP) - 27. SC24 = 16.2(5) - 27 (SC sunspot minimum was in Dec 2008) = 54 (Actual number was 81) That's quite a bit off, but it's a bit closer if you only count the first peak of the 'double peaked' solar activity. All the cycles measured SC23 and before in the paper had the solar cycle maximum in the first 'activity peak' - roughly 4 years after the SC minimum. Maybe we can make a tentative conclusion that this method is more accurate in predicting solar activity roughly 4 years from minimum, as opposed to the absolute maximum For the Solar Cycle 25 prediction, we can just assume the sunspot minimum is where the most recent 'smoothed' AP value is - roughly 6.5. That yields a prediction of 78 ~ meaning in 4 years according to this method the cycle will be similar strength as the one just gone - in line with what the NOAA 'Panel' and the solar polar fields method predict. But the solar maximum might even be in 6 years, and it could follow the SC24 trend of having the second solar activity peak stronger than the first one.
  5. nw says, "Looking briefly at the F10.7 Radio Flux (one spectral measure) since 1950, the solar minimums from 1950-2000 had a very similar solar flux value (~70-75 average)..." Actually, I would say that statement is not quite accurate. Have you looked at all of the graphs I provided in the second post of the thread titled, "F10.7cm Solar Minimum Analysis"? Those graphs zoom in on a 3-year window roughly centered around the Solar Minimum Nadir for all seven solar minimums recorded since the data's inception. If one look's carefully at that data (I plan to eventually update the SC24/25 transition graph), they might possibly conjecture that integrating (or even averaging) the data around solar minimum could provide a pretty good estimation of the following cycle's peak activity magnitude.
  6. There is an official NOAA presentation which goes through the NOAA Panel prediction for the previous Solar Cycle 24. It's worth having a look at https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/images/u33/(1120) Biesecker Solar Cycle Update.pdf . It also mentions an 'early' expectation for Solar Cycle 25 - this document was last edited around 2016. Even though it mentions the polar fields precursor method as one of the 'main precursors', there are several other methods used, including the 'Spectral' method, which in hindsight was slightly more accurate in predicting the SC24 sunspot number than the polar fields method. The difference was about 10 sunspots. But the spectral method does not seem to have predictions before the SC23 era. It might be worth using this method in hindsight to see if predictions stack up. Looking briefly at the F10.7 Radio Flux (one spectral measure) since 1950, the solar minimums from 1950-2000 had a very similar solar flux value (~70-75 average) though some cycles were weaker (SC20) when this method would suggest that SC20 should have been a bit stronger, possibly at least as strong as SC23. Then there was a significant dip in 2007-08 which led to a weaker SC24. The SORCE data could be useful also, but I can see that it only goes back to 2004... I think the key thing about 'accepted method' is that the solar polar fields precursor method has been around for longer than the spectral method, and gained acceptance earlier. It can predict the upcoming solar cycles within a broad range time after time. While it is reasonably accurate, there may be newer and more complex methods nowadays that are more accurate (though they haven't gained acceptance over a long period). So over a long period the SPF precursor method has arguably been the most successful - even though for individual solar cycles other methods may have been more accurate individually. Also, it's worth noting that several 'Dynamo' models combine the solar polar fields, physics models and spectral measures. Furthermore, Leif Svalgaard himself was on the NOAA SC24 prediction panel. This panel was split 6-5 on a larger-smaller cycle, with the smaller one eventuating, and Leif Svalgaard at least correctly predicting it would be a smaller cycle using solar polar fields. In addition, the solar polar fields have now increased to an average value of 67, whereas around SC minimum in 2008 the max value was 61. (Can be seen on link in previous post) Sello (2019) also provides a literature review of the current predictions and predictive methods for SC25 that can be seen here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331110677_Solar_cycle_activity_an_early_prediction_for_cycle_25. He quotes "Among predictors class one of the most efficient and the first physical based precursor is the Solar Polar Field Precursor Method developed by Schatten, Scherrer, Svalgaard et al. [1978]" Based on this information, it seems the solar polar fields method was at least one significant factor in the NOAA 'Panel' forecast this year that has been made for Solar Cycle 25. In any case, it's hard to predict exactly which method, panel or forecast will be the most successful for Solar Cycle 25 this early - though we can form an educated guess. As Sander said in another thread, we'll see what the result is in 3-5 years, and then there may be an even more accurate theory/method than the current ones.
  7. Last week
  8. On July 16 (above), na states, "There is an accepted methodology called the solar cycle 'precursor method' scientists use when predicting solar cycles...the most successful theory so far..is the Solar Polar Fields Method." Yes, I'm familiar with it. Nonetheless, should not an up-to-date measurement which directly reflects the magnetic activity at the photosphere, and taken at solar minimum, hold more weight over a 'precursor method' that is based upon a 'polar field measurement' from a very limited number of observers? na also states, "The solar polar fields method is also the one endorsed & used by NOAA for early predictions." The critical measurement I posted in the cited thread is from the NASA/NOAA satellite taking Solar Spectral Irradiance (SSI) measurements and the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) measurement which is so heavily bantered about by climatologists in the ongoing public AGW debates. If there is a public discussion on the integrity of those satellite measurements, I ask the kind viewer to step forward and point this author and the viewing public to such a discussion. To our knowledge, not one NASA scientist has publicly come forward remarking one way or another on the integrity of that measurement. Until that happens, we'll accept the data that NASA/NOAA are providing to the public as their public endorsement.
  9. In the thread titled, Solar Minimum per SORCE SIM, I posted a measurement from a NOAA/NASA satellite. It is a measurement of a specific frequency which indicates the level of magnetic activity at the photosphere where sunspots are generated as a result of magnetic activity. We think such a measurement, if accurate, is very telling with regard to what is happening on the solar disc. An obvious conclusion to be drawn from it is that the magnetic activity on the photosphere, at that wavelength, is greatly diminished from what is was in the last solar minimum. That measurement is near-realtime, and we believe the very low magnetic activity on the photosphere measured during this SC24/25 transition will have direct bearing on the magnitude of peak sunspot activity in SC25. This new evidence as presented consequently has major repercussions on the spaceweatherlive.com Forum's SC25 Forecast. EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY: Based on the current magnitudes of the SORCE Solar Spectral Irradiance centered around ~677nm, as indicated by the SORCE SIM database, we are slashing our forum's forecast for the SC25 Sunspot Peak Range by 15 points. The forecast of the Sunspot Peak Range (in the first post to this thread) has been changed to reflect these events. A press conference to announce this change in the SpaceWeatherLive Forum Forecast has not been scheduled.
  10. Nov. 1, 2008, Mercur is in perfect line between Venus and the Sun. During the solar minimum, it looks like it needs a minimum of 2 planets together to create sunspots.
  11. Excellent! Did you compare with the setup in late Oct 2008, and its resultant production: (image link). Well done! Excellent specimen! We are sticking a flag right here, folks! 🚩 🇳🇴
  12. We are approaching the 26th of October and Venus is about to get between Jupiter and the sun, which will cause sunspots, unless the solar minimum is so deep that it does not emit actual sunspots. Around 3.november Mercur will be able to create sunspots when it comes between Earth and the Sun. This possible sunspots will be quite low on the solar disc I believe. Time will show
  13. We have a 'tiny-tim' pore visiting us on the disc today: Whether or not it remains long enough to be counted, the solar flux continues onward to new lows: . UPDATE: Oct. 21, 2019, the day the solar flux plunged😱:
  14. The following two graphs are Total Irradiance Spectrum plots (from the SORCE Solar Spectral Irradiance data). The first plot is from Dec. 15, 2019 2008 at the SC23/24 Solar Minimum. The second plot from Oct. 15, 2019 is the latest data available in the current SC24/25 transition. The faint vertical grey line in both of the above plots is situated at ~677nm. We will evaluate this wavelength specifically, because according to the following chart, it is a Red Light frequency used to reveal the magnetic map at the photosphere: (Source of chart.) Here is the plot of the 677nm wavelength time series: So I ask you, kind reader, to vote on what the above plot is suggesting to you: We are (obviously) plunging below Dalton Minimum levels, if not into a full-blown Maunder Minimum!😱 (I wonder whether Kitiashvili had peeked at that graph--or similar--before putting out her latest forecast for SC25. 😎) The graph is 'interesting' 🤔; we need to look at some more data.🤓 (But is it is not curious why more solar physicists are not discussing this plot? 😯) The measurement is obviously suspect. 🙄 (The TSI and Solar Spectral Irradiance measurements should have been taken out at the Lagrange Point, rather than in low earth orbit.🙄)
  15. Unfortunately, there is not available a good number of Total Solar Irradiance measurements to historically compare data against, even going back no further than the beginning of the modern space age. (WHY IS THIS?!!?) In this thread, we'll look at the breadcrumbs we have, found at LASP Interactive Solar Irradiance Data Center: (to be continued)
  16. But an educated guess, nonetheless. 😊 The 'Scenario C' plot in the second post to this thread shows one plausible scenario, putting the Solar Minimum (Nadir) near the beginning of 2020. The fascinating thing about that plot is how well it lines up ~11 years later, to the month, with the SC 23/24 minimum transition.
  17. Given the ratio of SC24 polarity spots to SC25 polarity spots, I think it’s safe to say we have not reached solar minimum yet. That probably happens during the first half of 2020...just a guess though.
  18. Key point in the above statement is "monthly average" rather than the 'absolute low'; for example, witness where the the 'absolute low' of the Adjusted Flux occurred, relative to Solar Minimum, in the SC 18/19 transition: Today a new low in the Adjusted Flux was reached for the SC 24/25 transition:
  19. The F10.7cm Flux is in the process of double-dipping! This calls for an immediate slash in our forecast magnitudes. The forecast of the Sunspot Peak Range (in the first post to this thread) has been changed to reflect these events. A press conference to announce this change in the SpaceWeatherLive Forum Forecast has not been scheduled.
  20. Folks, this go-around, it is not "on". Some aurora chasers might be disappointed. If interested in this topic, continue reading. The method discussed in this thread is one of the few techniques that actually allow the citizen scientists themselves to look ahead several days in advance for the possibility of an approaching geomagnetic storm. Aurora chasers, for example, could take this knowledge into account if planning a trip. The previous few months has presented an opportunity during solar minimum where the solar wind, unencumbered by flare activity, has presented a highly repeatable pattern, first revealed in IMPACT, and then ~6.5 days later in ACE. (The planetary positions will likely also factor into the repeatability, and for the past few months, we have not had transit interaction from Mercury or other apparent planetary effects which could potentially cause disruption. Obviously, there is a lot more that could be discussed regarding the subtleties of using this technique.) Readers following this blog are aware of the persistent solar structure that has repeatedly created geomagnetic disturbance over the past few months. But the solar wind velocity dropped off on the last rotation, as well as the magnetic strength of the influence. We discussed this earlier in this thread. And now, the return of the 'persistent magnetic structure' is upon us. Have things changed over this solar rotation? If so, how? Suffice to say, "it" is not "on" this time. Yes there is a minor disturbance coming on ~Oct. 24, per IMPACT, but so far it is revealed this disturbance will only be a shell of its former self. The pertinent data is presented below. Do you see it? BTW, as before, again this time we have a smaller event to look forward to, prior to the real action. The smaller event occurred on Oct 15 at IMPACT, so we first expect a minor disturbance on ~Oct. 21-22. Now obviously, this point is being directed at folks hoping for a big dip down into the mid-latitudes, and doesn't apply to those that live way up in Norway, or other very high latitudes where aurora are frequent even without significant geomagnetic disturbance.
  21. Did you read the thread titled, Evolution of a "Stealthy CME"? If you apply that theory to the stealthy CME(s) on Oct 13-15 beyond the west limb, you may glean insight that grad students and post-docs are trying to figure out.
  22. Earlier
  23. Excellent, touching upon a hot topic boiling underneath the surface of this little corner on the internet! 😎 Thank you for your post, and I hope it is not your last! Now to check your dates in jsOrrery. 🙂
  24. I think both of you were getting the gist of what I think is going on, which is some magnetic reconnection effects causing inward (downward) flow of plasma on the outer regions of denser streamer formation, plasma that was previously at escape velocities outward. Coupled with the expected temperatures (probably at least 1 million K), and the apparent constant velocity of the flow (it didn't seem to be significantly accelerating inward), it is less likely due strictly to gravitation; it just looks atypical, counterintuitive, and something I had never noticed before in the C2 coronagraph. A longer link of video clip (i.e., plus/minus one day centered around the event) is required to properly observe the phenomena in context, so that is why I was pointing the reader to the SOHO link so they can create their own higher-resolution video for observation. Cheers. Another point I wish to make is that here was a case where we actually get to see the inward flow of matter in the solar wind, but could it possibly be happening significantly, even though rarely observed optically? Maybe the reverse flow of matter is significant enough to affect the surface flow of the photosphere plasma, and this is an out-of-the-box idea related to the one Hannes Alfvén was offering for an explanation of its apparent differential rotation.
  25. As a hobby, I study the effect the planets have on the sun, that causes sunspots. In the period between 26 October and 5 November we will be able to get some sunspots. This will be the last sunspots in 2019. It should indicate that 2019 will end up with between 278 and 283 days without sunspots. We might even get sunspots in the period belonging to SC25. However, as I said, its just an hobby so I might of course be wrong! RAB.
  26. This reminds me of other astrophysical effects. Pulsars have phenomena where some electrons and positrons confined by magnetic fields at lower latitudes flow out one side via the current sheet and eventually return back to the pulsar. That flow, aside from the gamma ray emissions that escape to space, return back and strike the pulsar. I believe this is both inside and outside the light cylinder. This is the generation mechanism of pulsar wind that leads to nebulae around pulsars such as Vela. ill have to locate the paper when I get home, it’s also a lecture on YouTube at Cornell IIRC.
  27. The videos has caused our monthly bill to rise to more than double. Gif’s are also relatively big in size and can further Increase the monthly billing. We disabled videos because of the increase in costs. We want to keep most of the features free to use so we have to take measures. apart from that... as you could see in the gif, there was some ejecta leaving the sun resulting in the magnetic field lines to open up into space and probably reconnect a bit later. But still the sun has magnetic field lines that are open into the interplanetary space and that gap in corona may look more dark when seen from that point of view. Just a guess
  28. Marcel, consider how many solar radii out the 'reverse flows' are. (BTW, videos, rather than GIFS, are much better in resolution quality and much easier to upload, and allow viewers to start/stop, and they actually are not much different in total memory size, so please consider allowing the upload of videos as in the past, yes?) Also Marcel, although we have seen CME material collapse, have you ever seen this phenomena before in the coronagraph imagery, what appears like 'reverse flow' back against the outflowing solar wind? Marcel, thanks for prodding me to dig further; I just came upon this reference, which may provide an answer, and they admit inbound waves are not something commonly observed: INBOUND WAVES IN THE SOLAR CORONA: A DIRECT INDICATOR OF ALFVÉN SURFACE LOCATION.
  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.