Jump to content

Javier

Member
  • Content Count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Javier last won the day on August 2

Javier had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About Javier

  • Rank
    Minor flare

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. In my brief visit to spaceweatherlive I've been the subject of an attack for some of my opinions not conforming to those of someone that appears to be policing the forum on his own, and I have watched as the thread I started to discuss and learn about solar-terrestrial coupling after a promising start was sequestered and turned into a battlefield over issues that are not related. I wish you all a good time, and thank you to those that contributed their knowledge to the question I posted.
  2. It is incorrect. Carrington event took place in September 1859, and solar cycle 10 maximum took place in February 1860, so it took place only 5 months before the maximum. We only have one confirmed Carrington event in 1859 and a possible one in 774 AD. The frequency could be lower than one per millennium. Nothing to lose sleep about. But good to know that in the UK are ready even if it happens during this solar minimum
  3. I'm sorry to hear that, but it is very common. There's plenty of journals so keep trying. It might help if you provide the editor with a list of suggested referees that you think might be easier to convince (don't tell him that, just that they would make good referees due to their expertise). Jan might be able to help you with that, as the list can include some of his friends. The editor is under no obligation to follow your suggestions, but finding referees is a chore to them so quite often they just do that. You would be surprised how many scientists do it. The system is rigged, but everybody pretends it is not.
  4. There is nothing special about this minimum. The number of spotless days has been higher in 4 other cycles. SC24-25 minimum has been slightly longer (~ 4 months) and slightly less active (~ 0.4 SILSO smoothed sunspots) than SC23-24 minimum. On principle I would expect SC25 to be slightly less active than SC24 according to the Brown rule: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/174/1/185/970691 It is unlikely that SC25 will be much more active or much less active than SC24, so I believe the official forecast to be reliable, because it sticks to the evidence. By the way, perhaps everybody knows this, but I just found out that Zharkova's 2019 article was retracted last March by the editors of Scientific Reports: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3 OUCH! That must hurt. This is relevant because Zharkova is one of the researchers predicting a very weak SC25, and in fact predicting a grand solar minimum starting 2020. I wouldn't place much confidence on her predictions.
  5. Scientists don't agree on such a prediction. In fact an international panel of experts coordinated by the NOAA and NASA, to which the WDC-SILSO contributed, released a preliminary forecast for Solar Cycle 25 on April 5, 2019. Based on a compilation of more than 60 forecasts published by various teams using a wide range of methods, the panel reached a consensus indicating that cycle 25 will most likely peak between 2023 and 2026 at a maximum sunspot number between 95 and 130. Therefore, solar cycle 25 will be similar to cycle 24, which peaked at 116 in April 2014. http://www.sidc.be/silso/node/152 That's the official prediction. Whether it will be right or wrong it's a different matter.
  6. Publishing without the right academic credentials in the highly competitive "publish or perish" current environment has become very difficult. You have my sympathy. Do not fall for the trap of predatory journals that would publish anything for a price.
  7. @Jim Sinclair Thank you. Those are interesting. I'll look them up.
  8. This figure is taken from D.N. Baker 2000 "Effects of the Sun on the Earth’s environment" at the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. He credits NASA for making it. As it is 20 years old, my question is if this figure is (still) a fair representation of our knowledge of the the flow of mass, momentum, and energy from the Sun to the Earth, or if in your opinion there is something wrong with it and/or if it is missing something important. Thank you.
  9. I have a copy of your article "The Adjusted Solar flux & the Start of Solar Cycle 25" uploaded to ResearchGate on December, 9 2018. It is interesting. The abstract says: "Many solar cycle researchers think that cycle 25 will start late 2019 or even in 2020-2021. However, after analyzing the lowest adjusted 10.7cm solar flux values, we find that the adjusted flux for November 2018 is low enough to give the start of solar cycle 25 between October 2018 and February 2019, November 2018 being most likely." The formula given is: ((SMMAF/SMMSN *100-100)/10)+100 The latest copy of your article now gives a date one year later "Further findings point to November-December 2019 as the starting date for Solar Cycle 25." And the formula has changed to: (SMMAF/SMMSN -1)*10+100 If your method accommodates to the changes in solar activity afterwards, how exactly does it constitute an improvement over counting sunspots?
  10. Considering that the Sun provides nearly all the energy that powers what we call climate I don't think it is unreasonable to consider the possibility that it might be one of the main factors affecting climate. The bean counters try to reduce the problem to W/m^2, but complex problems are not amenable to reductionism. Did you know that solar activity affects the speed of rotation of the Earth? Probably not. Le Mouël et al., 2010 "Solar forcing of the semi‐annual variation of length‐of‐day" And did you know that changes in the rotation speed of the Earth correlate with changes in climate? Probably not, but it is known since the mid-70s when they thought the climate was cooling. Lambeck & Cazenave, 1976 "Long Term Variations in the Length of Day and Climatic Change". They say: "Without a better understanding of the interactions between the two phenomena the use of the LOD observations in predicting climate is of very limited value but if the hypothesis is accepted then the continuing deceleration of m for the last 10 yr suggests that the present period of decreasing average global temperature will continue for at least another 5-10 yr. Perhaps a slight comfort in this gloomy trend is that in 1972 the LOD showed a sharp positive acceleration that has persisted until the present, although it is impossible to say if this trend will continue as it did at the turn of the century or whether it is only a small perturbation in the more general decelerating trend." 5 years after the sharp positive acceleration in LOD, the same year the paper was published, 1976, the gloomy cooling trend gave way to a gloomy warming trend. The rotation of the Earth, that responds to solar activity anticipates changes in climate by a few years. Paleoclimatology has already told us that grand solar minima, particularly when they cluster, coincide with sustained periods of climate worsening characterized by decrease in temperature is most regions, increase of temperature in some regions, altered atmospheric circulation and altered precipitations patterns, as it was observed during the LIA. The LIA is just the last example. It happened before in 2700 BP, and it presents a repeating pattern in North Atlantic iceberg activity linked to the millennial (Eddy) cycle in solar activity.
  11. Interesting. However your model (according to figure 5 in your paper) gives two peaks in activity for SC25. As you say "the double overlap can be reasonably expected to lead to a cycle 25 with spread-out activity characterised by two detached peaks." The model is probably oversimplified. Solar cycles don't produce that. The first peak was in 2019, the year the minimum took place. And your model's peak in 2023 is about half the size of the peak in 2013. It is highly unlikely that SC25 has half the activity of SC24 if we are to trust the polar fields method.
  12. Exploring recent trends in Northern Hemisphere blocking https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2013GL058745%4010.1002/(ISSN)1944-8007.ATMOS_VARIABILITY Solar modulation of Northern Hemisphere winter blocking https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2008JD009789 Eleven-year solar cycle signal in the NAO and Atlantic/European blocking https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/qj.2782 Solar forcing of winter climate variability in the Northern Hemisphere https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1282 Role of ozone in the solar cycle modulation of the North Atlantic Oscillation https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2007JD009336 Changing response of the North Atlantic/European winter climate to the 11 year solar cycle https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9e94/pdf Periodic analysis of solar activity and its link with the Arctic oscillation phenomenon https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-6256/148/6/128/pdf Comparing the influence of sunspot activity and geomagnetic activity on winter surface climate https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kalevi_Mursula/publication/301761068_Comparing_the_influence_of_sunspot_activity_and_geomagnetic_activity_on_winter_surface_climate/links/5d9ad60b299bf1c363fd0483/Comparing-the-influence-of-sunspot-activity-and-geomagnetic-activity-on-winter-surface-climate.pdf
  13. I don't remember that. I did project a solar minimum for early 2019 in a 2018 article at WUWT, and was convinced for months that it had taken place on May 2019 because of a clear minimum in 10.7 cm flux that kept increasing for half a year afterwards. https://solen.info/solar/images/Cycles_24_25_minimum.png Up until then 10.7 cm solar flux had been quite reliable. For example Patrick Geryl posted a paper at Researchgate on December 2018: "The Adjusted Solar flux & the Start of Solar Cycle 25" Abstract Many solar cycle researchers think that cycle 25 will start late 2019 or even in 2020-2021. However, after analyzing the lowest adjusted 10.7cm solar flux values, we find that the adjusted flux for November 2018 is low enough to give the start of solar cycle 25 between October 2018 and February 2019, November 2018 being most likely. The latest version of this paper (May 2020) includes Jan Alvestad as co-author and the abstract now says: Abstract After analyzing the lowest adjusted 10.7cm solar flux values, we find that the adjusted flux for October 2019 is low enough to give the start of Solar Cycle 25 between August 2019 and January 2020. Further findings point to November-December 2019 as the starting date for Solar Cycle 25, while the 2K high resolution sunspot number points to December 2019. I was not the only one fooled by 10.7 cm flux data and having to move the solar minimum forward in time. Once the new data stopped supporting my position I changed my mind. I am not one to sustain a wrong hypothesis when the data does not support it. As solar activity is a continuous variable we just need to agree on a definition. What I use is "solar minimum" for the period of low solar activity between two 11-year oscillations, "extended solar minimum" for a period of more than one 11-year solar oscillation with below-average solar activity, and for "grand solar minimum" I follow Ilya Usoskin definition for a period over 30 years with SN below a threshold value of 20. Under this definition the Dalton minimum was not a grand solar minimum. I am not worried because we think that things are one way and they turn out to be other way. It is often the case that we learn more from being wrong than from being right. I don't want to discuss planetary theories either. I am not a subscriber. Counting sunspots is really an imperfect way of following solar activity. It is semi-quantitative. Almost everybody ignores sunspot area. There is a database of sunspot area that shows some differences with the sunspot number database. That's why I prefer 10.7 cm flux, that also cannot fall to zero.
  14. It depends what you understand by correct. A lot of people are predicting that the Sun is entering into a grand solar minimum. If the Sun does not, then my model will be a lot more correct than theirs, won't it? Observation of periodical phenomena allows successful prediction without any knowledge of how it works. That's what allowed Neolithic farmers to predict the seasons without knowing their cause. Solar variability displays clear periodicities recorded in cosmogenic isotopes records and sunspot observations. The low activity of cycles 24 and 25 belongs to a centennial periodicity. The same periodicity that produced low active cycles E, D, 5, 6, 14, 15 and 16. There is also a bicentennial periodicity that affected cycles 12 and 13. A pentadecadal periodicity affected cycles A, 1, 10 and 20. Analyzing past solar activity to identify the relevant periodicities and incorporate them into a model is not very difficult. If the same periodicities continue playing in the future the model should be in the ball park. Of course the model is incomplete and not very accurate so a perfect prediction should not be expected. However for short-term predictions we have more accurate methods like the polar-fields method. It is a bit like predicting next winter's weather, the important thing is to get it right if it would be a harsh or a mild winter, then we have more precise weather predictions 14 days in advance. Why solar activity displays periodicities is not known. There are hypotheses related to the influence of the planets on the Sun, but so far they are not very convincing. But that solar activity displays periodicities is a fact and we might as well use it to peek at future solar activity. She's betting against the polar fields strength method. I don't think that's a safe bet. It works backwards to the first cycle. http://hmi.stanford.edu/hminuggets/?p=2084
  15. You can add my solar activity prediction for the next 10 solar cycles based on solar secular cycles. It was developed in 2016 and it also predicts that SC25 maximum activity should be between SC24 and SC23. No solar grand minimum here. The F is for Joan Feynman's solar centennial cycle.
×
×
  • 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.