Jump to content

Christopher S.

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Christopher S. last won the day on February 21

Christopher S. had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

14 Good

About Christopher S.

  • Rank
    Minor flare

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
  • Interests
    Science, Music, Martial Arts

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Those are some good things to consider. I would like to know where one can find periodic or real-time measurements of the temperatures in the thermosphere, they would be helpful in my own research. I was also under the impression that a marginal increase in Total Solar Irradiance would mean an increase in UV and EUV light. While the surface will see fewer UV rays due to the reflectivity of cloud tops and total ozone coverage, there are still technically more of them directed at Earth in the absence of sunspots and coronal holes. The difficulty of accurate weather forecasting varies based on where you live. In locations east of the Mediterranean, for instance, forecasts have historically lacked accuracy outside of a two-day period. For where I live, in the mountainous parts of Northern Arizona, the only accurate weather forecast elements are preceded by obvious and large-scale upper-level storm developments off the Pacific coast; local precipitation and rain-/snow-fall totals vary wildly from the forecast amount. Just a few days ago, a quarter inch of rain was supposed to fall here, and what actually took place was close to 4" of rain over the course of 24 hours and 1" of snow after that. Indeed, computer models need a bit of "help" I guess you could say. In mountainous areas, for instance, the physics of the lower atmosphere and its interaction with the terrain need to be considered, and these physics are not very well understood - at least, the methods to measure the necessary elements are not quite mature enough to lead to consistently accurate forecasts.
  2. Fundamentally, the draw of moisture into the upper atmosphere occurs more vigorously when both SSTs and the atmosphere itself is warmer than it does when it is cooler. Precipitation itself does occur when the factors of Shear, Lift, Instability, and Moisture(SLIM) come together and while the resultant storms are cool in nature, it is not correct to say that they are caused by a cooler atmosphere. The cooler atmosphere interacts with a warmer atmosphere to give the SLIM factors in greater magnitude depending on how much exchange of cool, dry air from the polar region or extratropics occurs with the warm, moist air of the subtropics. The article you linked corroborates this in sayings that Total Solar Irradiance increases a very small amount during solar minimum and thus the SSTs are able to increase to higher-than-average levels, lending credence to the idea that a warmer atmosphere is the cause of larger-scale precipitous events. In effect, a warmer atmosphere drives warm, moist air toward the north in greater speed and volume than a cooler atmosphere, as there is a greater difference between the climate zones and thus more instability and shear. The phenomenon of cooling along the fronts is secondary to the phenomenon of the formation and persistence of the atmospheric rivers which drives them. It is not a mere shift in the jetstream, but instead the function of atmospheric moisture driven by the Coriolis Effect which will bring you subtropical and extratropical jets of moisture, and it can be enhanced by a weak polar vortex(when the jets near the poles relax and the cool, dry air tends to migrate south in fronts.)
  3. I hope this discussion gets closed or something. I can't take the underhanded disrespect being directed at myself and others.
  4. I'll point out that I don't need mathematical proof of claims, just a logical basis for them. If you know something that I don't, instead of leveraging it to "win" in a needless argument, please educate me about it. Nobody curious about the universe should take what they read at face value, right? Also, the discussion isn't about knowledge, at least not on my part. I wish to understand things, especially things other people might be more educated about. There is an unnecessary personal barrier between my understanding of what this person is telling me, and that person showing me some substance of basis that would bring me to such an understanding. The scientific community is explicitly not political. It is fundamentally scientific. Science is science, and science knows what it's about. In order to present ideas that are irrefutable and completely free of speculation, it is often necessary to explain the basis for such ideas. That isn't possible with Michele, as she has resorted to disrespectful posts, which unfortunately you call "brave and assertive." Clearly, there is nothing constructive to discuss when the scientific substance of discussion is discarded and then replaced with blatantly arrogant attacks. If it is truly offensive to you that I disbelieve what you are telling me, and you see my questioning as "political", then let's just not have discourse. Don't come at me like I'm talking down to you or anybody here - act fairly and respectfully, and show some civility for crying out loud.
  5. A few things I must say, owing to my foundation of being a meteorological researcher first, and astrophysics nerd(non-accredited) second: 1. The above average precipitation owes to a warming atmosphere, not a cooling atmosphere. Convection occurs over oceanic temperature anomalies, most energetic at the ITCZ, and seasonally(for the Northern, Western Hemisphere) in the areas around Hadley Cells or in fronts associated with a strong polar vortex. As the temperature of the atmosphere increases, its capacity for carrying moisture also increases. This website uses reliable sources and lays it all out for you: https://www.climatesignals.org/climate-signals/atmospheric-moisture-increase 2. You are connecting an incorrect observation of the trend in the climate(in that it is cooling, whereas in reality, it is warming) with solar cycles. If you wish to have an accurate interpretation of the relationship between solar cycles and climate on Earth, you must first correct your understanding of the climate as it is today. 3. The amount of light that is absorbed by the planet increases more with deglaciation(thus reduction of albedo, AKA the amount of sunlight that is reflected away from the surfaces) than it does with the fluctuation of solar UV rays during solar cycles. This is due to the simple fact that the more light which is absorbed by the planet results in a more rapid heating of the surface. 4. The ability for the Gulf Stream(the atmospheric current which is described in the first post above) to reach Western Europe is a direct result of two things: Higher moisture content in the atmosphere(which we should all agree is due to climate change trending towards warming), and a weak polar vortex(the jet stream which revolves around the north pole at varying latitudes.) 5. There has been no observed correlation between the above described weather phenomena, and volcanic eruptions; what you are arbitrarily describing as a "very large eruption" can not be inferred from meteorological data, as these meteorological factors are not uncommon. 6. The topic is about a type of solar minimum, where by definition the Sun's magnetic field undergoes a reversal of the north and south poles, and during this time, few sunspots are observed. If you would like to see the Sun in the spectrum of light where it would be most relevant to the subject matter you are presenting, look at PROBA and perhaps a history of PROBA-2 imagery to interpret the magnitude of UV rays emitted visually: This looks about the same as it has for several months, and I reckon looking back further than that, you would not see a significant increase in the magnitude of UV rays as seen from this instrument. In short, a solar "wolf minimum" does not equate to devastation around the globe. If you can find absolute and scientifically sound causality, please share it. I would absolutely like to see it.
  6. It is unfortunate that you have retreated to your earlier stance of attacking the knowledge of people refuting the basis of claims you have made, and that you no longer wish to have a constructive conversation.
  7. You are absolutely right, I had quite a brain fart and misinterpreted the page I was looking at. This is especially embarrassing as I had just done a good bit of reading about the history of the GOES satellites, so I should have realized that "primary" and "secondary" indicates the difference between GOES-16 and GOES-17, where typically the GOES-West products and instruments are backups of the GOES-East products and instruments(for redundancy). Thank you for pointing this out, Marcel.
  8. I will try to answer your questions in a series: 1. Yes, the SWPC alerts on this website come directly from the SWPC's website. 2. The forecast is a prediction of what conditions SWPC expects. These are amended by warnings that may or may not have been predicted by SWPC's models or observations. Warnings are issued regardless of the forecast if the event being forewarned is of potential danger to satellites. 3. The alert condition represents a concurring event, which may or may not have a predicted termination phase. That is to say, unless the Space Weather Message specifies a "Valid from:" and "Valid to:" period, it is still a valid alert. 4. There is not necessarily a value to aurora watching or scientific research merely by cataloging certain alert statuses, however, I believe you can look at the history of SWPC alerts and warnings on this very website. There are no summaries or reports in a simplified format at this time which describe the substance of the warnings or alerts; again, these are Space Weather products which are more useful for satellite operators or communication administrations, rather than researchers or aurora watchers. The Space Environment Monitor of GOES-15, however, may be useful if you are attempting to build a foundation for your own research material: SEM G-15
  9. The 3-day forecast runs on a schedule. The alert above the forecast in your post was issued just at the onset of Kp4 conditions. It is easier to issue a warning or alert than it is to re-run the forecast model, and thus, it is to your advantage to give the actual warnings and alerts priority over the 3-day forecast. Note that forecast =/= recorded, actual conditions.
  10. These are in .txt format. If you download the readme, simply right click, rename, and add .txt to the end of the file name e.g. "README.txt" The files separate into DSD, DPD, and DGD, representing Daily Solar/Particle/Geomagnetic data, respectively. You will want to download the DGD files to see the K-index. Use the readme file to help understand what you are looking at, and email the SWPC webmaster at the email given by the latest DGD.txt file download(it's near the top) if you have more questions about their products.
  11. I believe this is what you are looking for: ftp://ftp.swpc.noaa.gov/pub/indices/old_indices/
  12. These are more advanced products for forecasting space weather than would be ideal for an average aurora watcher; these aid in determining the interference and charging of satellites, as well as the record keeping and prediction of solar cycles and associated activity. If you are truly curious about how to use the Space Weather Prediction Center's products, refer to this page: https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/content/subscription-services SWL also has a page which updates with current SWPC warnings and watches which will allow you to get the 3-day advance warning of a geomagnetic storm, although sometimes it is not a full three days ahead. See here: https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/reports/noaa-swpc-alerts-watches-and-warnings The first link explaining the SWPC products will aid in reading the information provided by the second link. Remember that Kp4 through Kp6 can and often do give visible auroras above 65º latitude, while Kp7 and above are considered Geomagnetic Storms, which can induce electrical currents at ground-level, while also extending the visible auroras further down in latitude.
  13. Hello. The sources of the GOES-17 imagery used by the website here are sourcing the secondary images, last updated in September 2019. As found in the link below, there are primary images that are updated consistently. These are near the bottom(suvi-primary-xxx), just check the dates next to the links within: https://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/ Example:
  14. This article says nothing about the danger of the cosmic rays emitted, or correlation to a weak solar cycle. Moreover, you originally posted that comment as a reply to the original topic, which itself was more or less an attempt at fearmongering without scientific basis. It also does not state that it was the largest we have seen in history, or really any timeframe. There is significant difference between a cultural effect of astronomical events, and a measurable, detrimental effect on life on Earth. One is a piece of a cultures history, and the other is a life changing, extinction-level event. Take note of the original post and topic of this thread we are commenting in, as what you are saying does not align with what that person was saying. Ultimately, there is very likely no danger in our lifetimes of any such events, and thus, we should focus more on imperative, known issues on the planet, rather than dreaming of some otherwordly source of gloom and doom.
  15. Hello all. For a few months now, I have noticed that the primary Magnetogram for the southern hemisphere that Spaceweatherlive uses is no longer transmitting data. While I do not have an explanation for this, I have went to the source website and found the same thing. Would you please find a replacement source to use in generally the same region for Australian aurora watchers? While the front page's "hemispheric power" graph and "auroral oval" can be helpful to indicate potential aurora activity, the Magnetograms shown on this website currently only provide information for the Northern Hemisphere. Thank you!
  • 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.