Recent Cycle #25 Sunspot

[theartist]

On 4/3/2019 at 9:34 AM, Rubén Vázquez said:

the failures come to light precisely because of the low activity,

But is the activity lower than it was in the last solar minimum?  Judging from the attached plot, we may not have a clear answer.

https://www.polarlicht-vorhersage.de/goes-archive

It appears from the plot that one of the sensors back then was flat-lining at ~4E-9.  Just speculating here, but possibly back then that instrumentation threshold was set because resolving signal from noise below that level was/is not practical.

On 4/3/2019 at 11:21 AM, Mr.Fractal said:

... we have to consider TSI, EMR "electromagnetic radiation", Magnetic Attraction, Combined thermolytic coupling of radioactive Protons in situ, "that quantitative radiation which exists in the space between our planet and the sun as a "constant" ", The new forms of Galactic radiation that our planet moves into as it travels the elipse of the galactic wheel. ...Our atmosphere is Magnifying the attraction of our star, And magnification of the TSI as it occurs due to the orientation of sulphur crystals in vast quantity in the stratosphere. This is why I believe the new solar maximum will be heralded by strong quakes.

We are neglecting studies regarding quantity of metals in the stratospheric levels and this mistake, will cause us to have inaccurate measurements of both TSI and electromagnetic connections to behavior within our planets mantle due to these factors

Mr.Fractal, what you have written there is pretty deep.  Some of those claims cannot be challenged without some hard science, but usually that onus first falls on the one making the claims. However, one point you made I think needs clarification and even correction, where you say, "We are neglecting studies regarding quantity of metals in the stratospheric levels and this mistake, will cause us to have inaccurate measurements of both TSI"     

Since TSI is measured at top-of-atmosphere (i.e., on a satellite platform well outside of our atmosphere), how do stratospheric constituents affect that measurement?

[Mr.Fractal]

Stratospheric measurements are affected because of the di-pole di-pole electromagnetic plasma exchange. As our planet accepts particles, it also EXPELLS particles during the reverse exchange, literally millions upon millions of electrically charged particles are exchanged due to the law of both thermodynamics through thermallitic exchange and the laws of electromagnetism. As our planet accepts particles, so are vast quantities of particles exchanged back towards our star. Though these particles of atmospheric pollutants and radioactive elements are contained by gravity, it is the act of "atomic magnetic return" which strips off huge quantities of pollution and sends those particulates back into outer space. Thus, not only does this sub atomic magnetic exchange alleviate vast quantities of upper atmospheric pollutants, the particles themselves are attracted back towards the sun. These radioactive subatomic pollutants are negatively charged and carry with them sulfites, which on thier way back out into outer space, interfere with incoming TSI.I believe Rubens to be Correct in his statement regarding the accuracy of TSI measurements from satellites. Those satellites are calibrated to test only that which is incoming, not those radioactive magnetised particles containing sulfites which are out going. 

[theartist]

Mr.Fractal, in your last reply you raise (possibly) a point of contention/confusion amongst amateur astronomers and professional solar physicists, with regard to the effect of magnetized particles on heat and temperature as reflected in TSI.  Now possibly you are more aware than me as to what is tagged "Electric Universe Theory", which some feel contains scientific principles that are part accurate, part error and part misinformation.  Can you please clarify the following:

33 minutes ago, Mr.Fractal said:

I believe Rubens to be Correct in his statement regarding the accuracy of TSI measurements from satellites.

I did not interpret Ruben's comments to mean he was questioning the accuracy of the TSI.  Maybe you instead were interpreting the earlier comments of Emilio Petrozzi to mean that?

[Mr.Fractal]

Thank you, your  correction is accurate I speed read all of the statements and mis quoted. Thank you for the correction

In addition, I would feel terrible if I have mislead any amateur astronomy enthusiasts or colleagues within the physics community.

My observations are solely my own. It is hoped that my observations of electromagnetism and the cycle of exchange between our star and the planet are taken into consideration by fellows of astrophysics, OIG division at NASA, JPL, CAL TECH, My associates at Purdue and Dr. Professor Sir Richard Friend at Cambridge. Though I have put forward some serious speculation regarding interference of TSI monitoring, it is my greatest hope to be able to gently remind this great community of scientists that we must consider those ideas which have not been put forward for peer review. I am excited to be able to say that I am close to being able to release my findings about the role aerosols play in magnetic and thermolytic exchange. I fully expect that when I present a new postulate, that these organisations we care so much about, add their 2 cents worth as well! It is not my intention to confuse, nor is it my intent to obfuscate previous proven theories regarding TSI, electro dynamism, pollution studies and earth quake studies. I realise that my idea of the atmosphere being a catalyst for change because I see it as a film filled with reactive particulates. My hope is that some of our scientific thinkers in this community chime in either way.

I apologise if I have put forth an idea which confuses amateur astronomy enthusiasts. I look forward to understanding the findings if any, to prove my theory of the atmosphere perhaps, behaving like a metallic film.

I know that this is an unusual idea, but, with an ever changing armosphere and ever changing particulate concentration within, that finding real scientific results may be impossible. I have not been called a quack, but if I am, than I will have to accept that.

A last note, regarding the promulgation of "The Electric Universe" idea...

I am not a follower, I always try to make the best correlations in my personal research, based upon facts and data. But as a scientist I am aware also that all ideas have merit, yet, finding the correlation and connectivity, the links, proving one fact or idea connects to the next without doubt,  Is always the driving force behind any of my ideas.

I apologise if I have been misleading in anyway, and I realise some of my ideas may seem Un related.

I'm working on it.

Thank You,

Mr. Fractal 

[Guest]

Forget what I said. Don't care for the political debate.

[Mr.Fractal]

Cazador, sounds like we are in agreement with the political motivation and global warming, our planet is heating up, gradually, this is not to say it will continue to do so, Our atmosphere and planet, including the words oceans must be viewed as a naturally changing environment. We cannot underestimate the impact of toxic pollutants and deforestation, the long term effect of the role humans play in this planets changing temperatures will not be seen; Until we ourselves come up with a plan which is zero pollution and humankind agreeing to a program of global sustainable practises. There is no crystal ball, so your ideas are as welcome as any scientists that I know. Sadly, political motivation comes hand in hand with new schemes to generate billions of dollars so that we can then waste the money on pseudo science.

We have already funneled billions of dollars into Dark Matter, to what end?

Dark Matter clearly does not exist but the proponents will scream otherwise. We are seeing the same behavior regarding the climate, climate studies and government sponsored programs feeding "bad" data to the public in order to justify huge expenditures and new tax programs. Sadly, I entered the world of Science with altruistic ideals, yet I see many of my colleagues sell out to phoney schemes for money. I believe the future of understanding our changing climate will come from young people, still in University. Not to tarnish science, I only want to point out that Science is only able to find results and answers to why things work the way they do. There is no cure for our planet from science, it remains with all people to make concientious descisions about pollutants and our mass consumption of natural resources, unchecked population expansion, and of course, remembering all the while, whilst we pay off our mortgages, drive expensive cars, eat at fancy restaurants that we do this at the expense of a dwindling environment.

All of us need to knuckle down, pull in our belts and reverse corporate government, back to a government of the people, for this planet. Keep up with your studies, feel free to post ideas, together we will find the solution to the unfolding crisis. I make outrageous claims all the time! My upper class mates at Uni give me grief all of the time. I'm working on my doctorate in Theoretical quantum physics with a post grad study in exotic wave theory. Not a Dr. Yet!!! But thanks for the compliment!!

[Guest]

Well that's quite a cherry-picked response if I've ever seen one. Opting out of this discussion.

[Mr.Fractal]

You will find rhetoric in any think tank.

[theartist]

On 4/3/2019 at 9:17 AM, theartist said:

I would suggest comparing the GOES X-ray data with the data provided at the link I cited earlier (http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/ ), over those same bandwidths, 10nm-80nm.  I'm curious how they compare, but unfortunately, I'm not able to get into that site this morning. 

 

How embarrassing, the same bandwidths are 0.05nm-0.8nm; at the time I posted, in my haste, I did the 10x conversion in my head, but went the wrong way.😣  So sorry, Rubén Vázquez, and all.😓  (I.e., the plotted GOES 14&15 X-ray bandwidths are 0.5-8.0 A combined, being 0.05-0.8nm.)

[Rubén Vázquez]

8 hours ago, theartist said:

Qué vergonzoso, los mismos anchos de banda son 0.05nm-0.8nm; en el momento en que publiqué, en mi prisa, hice la conversión 10x en mi cabeza, pero fui por el camino equivocado. 😣   Lo siento,  Rubén Vázquez ,  y todo. 😓  (Es decir, los anchos de banda de rayos X de GOES 14 y 15 representados son 0.5-8.0 A combinados, siendo 0.05-0.8nm).

Do not worry theartist, thanks for the clarification. Regarding the points of view I think it is fundamental that we have different approaches that make us have more data to compare. You always learn. The best thing is always to think that one can be wrong because it is the first step to have a flexible mind and ready to move forward and be enriched by new information. If we close ourselves in a fixed idea, we will never advance. Debate with different ideas, with serious arguments and respect is the ideal climate for all to grow.

A hug.

[theartist]

Thank you, Rubén.  Earlier you suggested that the X-ray levels this current solar minimum may be unusually low, as plotted per the GOES 14 & 15 X-ray Flux plots.

For comparison, I suggested looking at X-ray levels found in plots found at http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/ .  Below I circle the only database (that I could find) there which provides easy interactive online access and provides irradiance plots in the X-ray frequencies of interest.

 

 

I've created a document (using google docs) at the following link, in order to consolidate plots of the X-Ray frequencies of interest, comparing the Solar Minimum period of SC23 to the current Solar Minimum period of SC24:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_7cK_nqJckuMh6PqqhKpoGENzOUH5MGdUfiMndSFSPU/edit?usp=sharing

That document contains plots of Soft X-ray energy levels, in the 0.5-8.0 Angstrom energy range of interest, comparing levels between a 15-month period centered (roughly) around the SC23 Minimum versus the most recent 15-month period of SC24.  Here is a sample plot from that document:

 

[theartist]

I examined plots of the following frequencies: 0.05nm, 0.15nm, 0.25nm, 0.35nm, 0.45nm, 0.55nm, 0.65nm, 0.75nm, and 0.85nm.  I conclude the following:  "Across all Soft X-ray frequencies examined, the average* energy levels during SC23 Minimum were at lower magnitudes than what has been observed so far during SC24 Minimum. (*The ‘average’ was ascertained from simply eye-balling the graphs.  Although this is not absolutely quantitative, it is readily apparent in comparing the magnitudes of energy levels presented on the y-axis, between the graphs, that our conclusion is sound.)"

Please examine the data plotted in the document* yourself, if you may, and share any conclusions, critique, questions, etc.  Thank-you for prompting this interesting exercise!  😄

[*The document has been published on the web, found here:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTGwZr4yFusUCRwAOE4vo8WUvdNte2FHE6aN9C11nVoohsOARtzuK_fnTNH1ygXEapZufAGxHjVmMaV/pub .  Note, the document was created and published with the free google apps, which provides convenience, at the expense of them possibly containing some quarky formatting issues.]

[Rubén Vázquez]

Thanks for your analysis theartist, in my contribution, I was referring to the decrease below the detection thresholds since the end of February 2019. At this time, it goes back above the GOES 15 detection thresholds.

I think the next few months will be interesting to see if in general the sun begins to increase its activity, time is what will give the reason to those who think we are facing a possible high minimum or those who think not. What is undeniable is that we do not yet have the capacity to forecast the solar cycles before they begin.

We can know something more when they have already begun, depending on their evolution, but today no one can say with the same certainty that a weather forecast at 24 hours as it is going to be cycle 25.

Persoally I am expectant and with an open mind to all the information, theories, but I believe that the sun will have the last word. The best we can do is to continue studying and learning from their behavior, with humility, collaboration and joining points, even from the theories that we do not share, which are sometimes what make us follow a new path that opens new discoveries. 

[theartist]

Reuben, I think you have certainly pointed out an issue with absolute accuracy, particularly of the GOES 15 1.0-8.0 A (red) sensor, when at these low-level irradiance conditions. The reason I say that is when flat-lining, its values are practically two orders-of-magnitude less than the comparable GOES 14 sensor (orange).  However, it still does respond to flares, as your attached plot confirms, and when it does so, its values seem to be within the same order of magnitude as the GOES 14 sensor.  Since it is not something that is easily swapped out,☺️, NASA is letting us (the general public) observe how its (possibly questionable?) performance unfolds, right along with them.  I'll see if I can get Dr. Strong to offer an opinion on it, and will get back to you if he does.  

[Edit, above I said 'NASA', but I think 'NOAA/SWPC' would have been the more correct term.]

[theartist]

To Rubén and all, I've been looking through an archive of the GOES X-ray Flux plots to see if there are any further clues on the apparent erratic behavior of the GOES 15 1.0-8.0 A sensor (which I'll refer to as the 'G15,1-8 sensor'). (I discovered this archive of image data in the spaceweatherlive archive found here:  https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/archive/2015/07/01/xray .  The NOAA/SWPC GOES plots can be accessed there by clicking the 'SWPC' button.)

WOWSERS to the folks that put the spaceweatherlive site together!😍

Below are images of the GOES X-ray Flux plots recorded on Jan 1 for each of the last three years:

Looking closely at the last two images, we see that the 'G15,1-8 sensor' was operating fine at the beginning of 2018, tracking the comparable GOES 14 sensor (orange) fairly well.  However, we see that is not the case at the beginning of 2019, and conclude the performance of the 'G15,1-8 sensor' took a turn for the worse sometime in 2018.  

[theartist]

20 hours ago, Rubén Vázquez said:

time is what will give the reason to those who think we are facing a possible high minimum

Another SC25 area emerged on the disk today:

[Rubén Vázquez]

16 hours ago, theartist said:

To Rubén and all, I've been looking through an archive of the GOES X-ray Flux plots to see if there are any further clues on the apparent erratic behavior of the GOES 15 1.0-8.0 A sensor (which I'll refer to as the 'G15,1-8 sensor'). (I discovered this archive of image data in the spaceweatherlive archive found here:  https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/archive/2015/07/01/xray .  The NOAA/SWPC GOES plots can be accessed there by clicking the 'SWPC' button.)

WOWSERS to the folks that put the spaceweatherlive site together!😍

Below are images of the GOES X-ray Flux plots recorded on Jan 1 for each of the last three years:

Looking closely at the last two images, we see that the 'G15,1-8 sensor' was operating fine at the beginning of 2018, tracking the comparable GOES 14 sensor (orange) fairly well.  However, we see that is not the case at the beginning of 2019, and conclude the performance of the 'G15,1-8 sensor' took a turn for the worse sometime in 2018.  

Thanks for your analysis, what I still miss is an official notification about this sensor behavior. I understand that if there is an error that lasts for a long time and that causes a graph to fall flat, there must be an official statement that says the sensor is having problems.

Thank you very much for your analysis.

[theartist]

Rubén Looking at the GOES 15 plot today, it appears some type of 'fix' adjustment has been applied to it, just in the last day, for now it is tracking the GOES 14 sensor quite well.

[Rubén Vázquez]

On 19/4/2019 at 3:07, theartist said:

Rubén Mirando la gráfica de GOES 15 hoy, parece que se le aplicó algún tipo de ajuste de 'corrección', solo en el último día, por ahora está siguiendo bastante bien el sensor de GOES 14. 

Hi, yes, I've seen it. Thank you very much for advising and for all the answers.

A hug.