Jump to content

CazadorDeWulf

Member
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

About CazadorDeWulf

  • Rank
    Minor flare

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Arizona
  • Interests
    Weather, Music, Computer Hardware, Engineering Marvels

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The weather in a single locale within a 24hr period, for example it being sunny in Maryland, or -40º in Montana, is one of thousands of samples which can be used in analyzing trends, patterns, anomalies, etc., and in no way can be used to predict and assert what those trends, patterns, anomalies, etc. are in another locale, nor what they will be tomorrow or the next day, without correlating with, and accounting for all of the other useful, unique, and anomalous samples of weather-related data. We have satellites with equipment that can tell the "story" on a 5 minute interval across most of the Western Hemisphere, and as such we should trust in the data it delivers to us, because it tells everyone the same story without perversion. Did you know that there are deserts in South America that haven't seen rain in such a long time, that bacteria and other microbial life adapted to be completely adverse to rain? A rain event there in 2015, and again in 2017, led to the extinction of several species of this microbial life. It goes to show that rain is a major factor in the health of the land, both in geological shape, and in biological diversity. But the important part about it is consistency, and this rain event was anomalous. We have to look back at the last time it rained there, as well as why it rained there this time, to explain what had just occurred. We have to look back in time, and we have to rely on computer models moving forward, to come close to gripping answers. Correlate this with melting sea ice and rising waters, and a decreasing albedo means that the global mean temperature will climb, indefinitely. To me, this is a very basic and believable flow of logic which is the premise for several fields of study pertaining to Space Weather, as well as Meteorology. To make claims about the state of warming in Earth's atmosphere based entirely on a 6-12 hour observation of clear weather is like pointing out a single sunspot to claim we aren't close to solar minimum. (GOES-17 is now operational, by the way)
  2. Wow, thanks for the slightly cynical post! But this is only scratching the surface of what I'm asking
  3. Are aurora watchers disappointed by the Sun's somewhat lackluster delivery of wind? And are scientists busying themselves with other things for the next long while? Which fields of science or human development are most relieved when geomagnetic-interference becomes less prominent, such as right now? Which fields are reliant on the concurrent activity of our Sun, and become temporarily retired or even at-risk of losing Government funding? I'm sure the answer is a few google searches away but I'd rather someone shared their expertise here! In other words, I am asking you directly Maybe we can discuss this.
  4. Besides the obvious advice of seeking medical attention for this immediately, which I hope you will do if you haven't already... this is what I think: A "nearly 100%" correlation is unfortunately not a 100% correlation; you ought to expect your discovery to be discredited immediately without more data to show actual correlation. For instance, human beings do not possess geomagnetic-sensing capabilities as far as I or anyone on Earth knows, and if there is indeed research and experimentation showing real causality in Space Weather, and not proven medical conditions, please provide such, so as to convince me/anyone to see things your way and begin moving forward with this newfound discovery. This log of yours uses SWL's data only, which is absolutely incomplete in terms of the information we could probe within the Earth's magnetosphere. It could also have been below 15% humidity every day your son had an episode, which would be a more positive correlation in your experiment than what it is you're attempting to prove is a causality. Science is, in part, eliminating information from the "equation" that doesn't need to be there in order to ascertain some semblance of real truth and fact; have you done that at all? Look up: "Confirmation Bias" In any case, get your son to a Doctor. Doctors are trained to diagnose and choose a method of treatment for countless conditions in their school of medicine. Treating seizures is more imperative than noting coincidences in Earth's geomagnetic state. After all, would you rather discover the cause of his seizures was something that was too poorly understood to be treated, or a known disease that likely can be treated?? I choose the latter!
  5. While I admire the effort someone put in to prove/disprove or even discover new theories, or rather, just the framework, there must be more work done. I'm very much open to debate about drawing conclusions based on a limited number of data, as well as its representation to form a conclusion about these things. We can all work together, surely in some way, to align recorded events with one another or something of a logical matter, to really crack this unlabeled can from outer space open and peer inside. Here's just a bit of subjective wisdom for aspiring "scientists" that I think a lot of people need to read: We are human beings, and we make mistakes. The biggest mistake we make in science, from my personal observations, is coming to an impasse with one another. Science exists so this needn't ever happen, I believe. We research, we check, we attempt to solve and we try to share our curiosities or findings. Questions are often solved with more questions, branching out in seemingly infinite ways. Conclusions should not be rushed if we are to even scratch the surface of the unknown; attempting to solve a problem or answer a question pertaining to the relativity of one observable pattern of data to another takes a lot of willpower, because what sounds unlikely and easy to challenge probably is. The bottom line is that we must accept questions as answers, and examine just how interconnected everything and its opposite are.
  6. I have not taken it upon myself to gather evidence or even illustrate the concepts I am about to propose, but I wanted to drop them off here and see what anyone might think about this. I am an amateur, so hear me out: I have been monitoring space weather on and off quite frequently, and during periods of geomagnetic disturbance I keep a close eye on how the IMF fluctuates. I saw the Trans-equatorial hole coming before it was facing us, and decided to look up what it was. It is uncommon, to say the least, but not unexpected. However, what is unexpected is the influence it is having on the direction of the IMF. One minute, it is moderately north. The next, it is moderately south, and dropping. Then, woah, moderately north. I am separately monitoring earthquakes via "spectrographs", and local Helicorders. Well, suffice to say after a lot of close observation, there are a few things I can conclude: Shortly following SWL updates indicating sudden and sharp shifts in the direction of the IMF, seismographic activity occurs almost globally; there is almost always feedback simultaneously around specific geographic regions. Particularly, I witnessed a moderately south-to-moderately north shift just half an hour ago, and areas such as Mount Rainier and Hawaii responded at the same time with a "chirp". In fact, there were several chirps that occurred at an increasing frequency and died off after about 4-5 occurrences. Now, this is what I would call "observational science", but I can see some manner of connection when observing seismic activity around Chile. Northern Chile has been quite active lately, but seems to have a pattern. Big shifts in the IMF precede seismographic feedback in Northern Chile. This may also be true of Northern Japan. Even if you're hell-bent on believing that there is no connection between space weather and earthquakes, there may be a connection between our readings of the IMF and seismographic readings that can lend humanity to forecast an eruption or earthquake more accurately. I obviously show my ignorance full-force here, but I urge you all to take the time to observe with your own eyes any concurrent connections between significant space weather and deep-geological activity via live monitoring tools found throughout the internet in conjunction with Spaceweatherlive.
×
×
  • 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.