Jump to content
Javier

Current knowledge of Solar-Terrestrial Coupling

Recommended Posts

spacer.png

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a couple of possibilities could be added.

Neutrinos from the solar interior to Earth's interior.

Heavy neutral particles from the solar wind to all layers of the atmosphere and from Cosmic rays.

These are both hard things to measure so we don't know a lot about either of them.

Radio noise mainly from the photo-sphere I think. Causes a blackout period for geostationary satellites.

Jim.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2020 at 3:04 AM, Javier said:

@Jim Sinclair Thank you. Those are interesting. I'll look them up.

Javier, note how temps in the ENSO regions are dropping as sunspots form in the northern hemisphere of the sun. My concept of the sun/ocean correlation is gaining validity week by week. The sun dorectly drives temp changes in the 3.4 region mainly, but this also affects other regions of the global oceans.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, goldminor said:

Javier, note how temps in the ENSO regions are dropping as sunspots form in the northern hemisphere of the sun. My concept of the sun/ocean correlation is gaining validity week by week. The sun dorectly drives temp changes in the 3.4 region mainly, but this also affects other regions of the global oceans.

While indeed the Sun is responsible for heating the Earth, sun spots are not. Unless you can show the correlation you speak of, I present an argument against it.

You assert that ENSO region temperatures are dropping in response to sun spot formation in the NH of the Sun. The current sun spots had formed on the far-side of the sun, so they are easily 2-3 weeks old now. So, is the temperature drop in response to their formation, or is it in response to these sun spots being on the Earth-facing side of the sun?

In 2015, several NH sun spots can be found coinciding with anomalously warm, not cold, ENSO region temps(Northern Central- and Eastern- Pacific SSTs as well), which you can review from these two sources: https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/archive/2015/08/07/dayobs for the archive showing sun spots(starting 2 full rotations prior to the formation of Hurricane Oho on Oct. 3rd) and here https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/tropical-storm-oho-hurricane-northwest-british-columbia for the summary of the conditions which led to a very strange tropical system which took an odd path along anomalously warm waters.

If that isn't enough for you, then may I remind you that you are claiming that the correlation between the sun spots and SSTs(or plainly "ENSO region temps" as you put it, which I take to mean SSTs) is very strong, and thus that climatic temperature fluctuations are overridden by these relatively small and few sun spots being exposed to Earth in less than half of a solar rotation.

In short, there is data which suggests exactly the opposite of your claim in those two links. There is no validity to it, unless you can show otherwise. Please don't take this as an attack and shut down, I sincerely want to understand your perspective and learn from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/30/2020 at 8:26 PM, Jim Sinclair said:

Radio noise mainly from the photo-sphere I think. Causes a blackout period for geostationary satellites.

Jim.

Solar flares from the photosphere can also cause terrestrial HF radio blackouts (aka sudden ionospheric disturbance or "SID").  X-ray radiation from a flare strongly ionizes the D-layer of the ionosphere, the layer closest to the Earth (30-60 miles altitude).  Skip propagation requires refraction of the radio signals from the higher layers of the ionosphere (E and/or F).  The blackout period occurs because the abnormally high ionization of the D-layer absorbs these radio transmissions.  The blackout period may last from seconds to hours before the D-layer settles to normal ionization. 

Since signals from geosynchronous satellites must pass through the D-layer to reach Earth, I presume this is the same mechanism for the blackout of communications between Earth and satellites (only sunlit Earth side).

A highly disturbed geomagnetic field (high K or A index) can also disrupt HF communications, affecting the upper layers of the ionosphere; though conductive ionized gas from Auroras can enhance propagation for radio frequencies above 20MHz (including VHF).

The D-layer disappears at night and quickly reconstitutes in daylight.  I shudder to think what the terrestrial effect might be of a strong solar flare at dawn aimed at Earth before the D-layer has reconstituted (shields down). 

 

Edited by Drax Spacex
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Drax Spacex,

All you say is true but I was referring to the continuous thermal noise. When a geostationary satellite passes across the face of the sun or within a couple of degrees of that direction the thermal noise is strong enough to swamp out the satellite signal.

Jim.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ah OK thanks for elaborating - if I understand, in such case, it's not the satellite signal affected by space weather, but the Earth receiver being affected by thermal noise when pointed near the Sun.  i.e. while the satellite signal S is unaffected, the (S+N)/N ratio at the Earth receiver is dominated by solar thermal noise N.

Edited by Drax Spacex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

21 hours ago, Drax Spacex said:

The D-layer disappears at night and quickly reconstitutes in daylight.  I shudder to think what the terrestrial effect might be of a strong solar flare at dawn aimed at Earth before the D-layer has reconstituted (shields down).

What effect?  The flare just super charges the D-layer, creating an electrical “fog” or blanket on the ionosphere, resulting in the medium wave band (and even higher) skywave being “midday dead quiet”! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2020 at 12:40 PM, Christopher S. said:

In short, there is data which suggests exactly the opposite of your claim in those two links. There is no validity to it, unless you can show otherwise. Please don't take this as an attack and shut down, I sincerely want to understand your perspective and learn from it.

To understand my concept we need to look at the charts in question. Here is one of the key charts. Note that the southern hemisphere is holding the excess ssn count into mid 2015. Then as you point out the excess sunspots shift to the north after the middle of 2015. The ENSO 3.4 region does not respond immediately to this change. It takes some months, especially when the south had been strongly dominant for several years preceding the middle of 2015. That last large El Nino started to form around the end of spring of 2014. Note how Silso shows excess sunspots in the south starting early in 2014. The sun goes first, and the MEI follows some months later.

There is also several other factors which affects the ENSO regions, the wind and gravity. After a strong El Nino gravity takes over to slosh the water back to the west across the ENSO regions. The sun is not going to be able to influence that process.Then there is a question of does the sun affect surface winds at the Equator? Is that part of the mechanism which creates the connection between the sun and the ENSO regions1961370918_MEI...12118lastonebeforechange.png.e82eb5cf33bdaa11f5c8b7f843f788a2.png?  ... wnosuf.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Kaimbridge said:

 

What effect?  The flare just super charges the D-layer, creating an electrical “fog” or blanket on the ionosphere, resulting in the medium wave band (and even higher) skywave being “midday dead quiet”! 

 

The usual depiction of the D layer is that the ionization level builds up incrementally in daylight.    On the dawn side of the gray line, the D layer would not yet exist.  The near-relativistic initial hit from a strong solar flare would be a glancing impact (90° incident angle) along the dawn gray line.  I was pondering whether that is a region of particular vulnerability.  It's off-topic but an interesting question (I think) which probably could be answered from scavenging data from strong solar flares in recent decades.

Is "Solar Wind" in the right spot on this chart?  It has a direct line to "Corona".  But don't coronal holes (the localized thinning of the corona) give rise to strong solar winds, the particle source of the solar wind from a layer below the Sun's corona (chromosphere).  Maybe add an extra solid or dotted line(s) somewhere to depict the phenomenon of coronal holes and effect on solar wind, and the particle source of solar wind.

Edited by Drax Spacex
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@goldminor I like your theory.  I am summarising it as I understand it (engineer not an astronomer/solar physicist) when the sun has more activity in a particular hemisphere, more energy arrives on earth and warms oceans and vice versa.  This paper from NASA explains the 40 year cycle  https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/science/plasma-flow.html

This paper shows the PDO going back to 1900 so you can see the previous flip from warm to cool.  http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

This shows the correlation between PDO and temps  https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/isolate:240/mean:60/scale:14/from:1918/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1918/isolate:240/mean:60

PDO mean over 20 years  https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/mean:240

AMO mean over 20 years https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/mean:240

and unadjusted temperatures in iceland at the end of the ocean circulation belt  https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v3.cgi

Obviously the oceans have a huge thermal capacity and would lag any inbound influence by at least 20 years

Then someone just has to show how the major planets influence the sun and their cycles and this adds into the interplanetary clocking system that someone explored earlier this year.

Of course as scientists we know correlation does not equal causation and it could all be an interesting coincidence...

Scott Rose has used the data from SILSO on hemispheric counts and correlated them to ENSO region 3.4.

 

117145934_3465844110101454_4435509103251

 

and shown correlation with North atlantic temps

 

spacer.png

 

Edited by Capricopia
new graphs illustrating the theory.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Capricopia said:

@goldminor I like your theory.  I am summarising it as I understand it (engineer not an astronomer/solar physicist) when the sun has more activity in a particular hemisphere,  ...

and shown correlation with North atlantic temps

 

 

 

Many years ago I started down this line of thought when I arrived at the conclusion that the short term (30+ year) climate shift points are positioned thusly starting from the late 1800s. From 1885/86 to 1916/17 cooling, from 1916/17 to 1946/47 warming, from 1946/47 to 1976/77 cooling, from 1976/77 to 2006/07 warming. The cooling mechanism started in 2006/07. However, due to the intensity of the last warm trend we do not see the cooling effect right away. That excess heat in the oceans needs to bleed off, and that happens slowly. That is likely a good thing for us humans. Rapid changes would make life much harsher.

My reasoning for the above shift points is that is how I visually assessed the related charts/graphs which science produces. I have an unusual ability to read charts/graphs. Thus I eventually visually and mentally formed the picture to meld the disparate graphs into a unified picture. keep in mind that I was a university dropout at the end of the 1960s, but I was gifted with a strong mentality.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that there is a definite correlation there, however, the explanation(specifically, the physics at work) could use a bit of cleaning up.

On 8/3/2020 at 2:57 PM, goldminor said:

There is also several other factors which affects the ENSO regions, the wind and gravity. After a strong El Nino gravity takes over to slosh the water back to the west across the ENSO regions. The sun is not going to be able to influence that process.

If you take a bit of time to study fluid dynamics, even just the basics, as well as oceanic thermodynamics(in a broad sense), you will start to see more of what drives change in oceanic regions, and eventually realize how much more complex it is than "gravity takes over to slosh the water back..." When I have a solid day or two to put towards it, I'll be working on refining the explanation of what's going on here. I'm going to leave out saying "goldminor has a gift" if it's all the same to you.

As Capricopia demonstrated, it takes several working theories and objective measurements combined to make any sort of guess of what exactly the correlation is between NH/SH SS count and ENSO region variation, and whether or not it is applicable to other oceanic regions on the planet(which it probably is). To find that correlation means we can better understand the relationship between various factors, and the more we understand, the closer we get to new and interesting applied mathematics, theories, and possibly even inventions to take specific measurements.

Most importantly, when trying to "reinvent the wheel" in describing a unique take on climate patterns in the modern era, you need to eliminate confirmation bias in your studies, completely. To be convincing, you have to search out everything that may contradict your understanding - put the time in to learn about every other correlation that is possible. You will be equipped to handle interjection/objection constructively. 

As this sect of scientific discourse/debate is volatile and easily derailed by ego and outrage culture, to have your work recognized by any significant number of scientifically literate folks in the greater climate science community(or adjacent communities) truly requires thorough research, and objective stances. The moment one departs from those two things in their efforts to persuade others, is when you begin to invoke personal strife into the discussion. Just put your thoughts and work out there, and let people interpret it - this will net you the best feedback for your hypotheses as anything people can rightly say on the subject is directly related to it, and not you. Once you start to put your thought-craft out into a public scene, if it contains phrases like "I have been gifted with a great mentality," you will be torn apart. Whether or not you're so far up your own *** to care about what someone thinks about you, it really takes away from the discussion that could be had about the actual subject. So, let's keep the ego in check from here on, eh?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I state that is that is the only claim which I can make as to how I have gotten to this point. I scored 155 on my IQ test. I hold no degrees as I dropped out of college in my freshman year, and you are the one who keeps making this personal. However, I do not care what you think about me. I am here to share the inner picture which I have developed. To tell you the truth I would have never expected to get this far back in 2008 when I started on this journey. I am limited though by my lack of a complete education though. My purpose then is to draw the main template for others to follow and build upon. Nature continues to reinforce my main concept.

Obviously, to flesh out the entire sequence of events from the sun to the oceans is beyond my abilities due to the limits of my education. I have some ideas related to that. More than that my life's circumstances work against me, and it is amazing that I even made it this far. One would think that at 70 years of age my life would be settled and pleasant. That has never come to pass for me. Yet here I am warts and all having stumbled upon that which others could not see. I am an oddity. The inner realm was always of paramount importance to me, especially earlier on in my life. The spiritual experiences which I had back then in the 1960s in my teenage year forever changed me. I can't prove any of my stories from back then actually occured as stated, but I could readily pass any polygraph test if asked about them.

In the next several days I will write a description in part of a section of how the MEI is fully intertwined with the Silso excess sunspot chart. Let's see what you think of that. It will only involve the correlation between the MEI and Silso charts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After double checking my notes, I believe the correlation is not strong enough to attribute NH/SH sunspot count disparity to ENSO temp anomaly. Initially it was posited that the region is cooling concurrently due to an increase in sunspots, but that is just physically impossible in this time frame, and fundamentally is the opposite of what one might expect as we are departing from a quiet minimum. As goldminor pointed out, the ocean temps take a while to warm up or cool down, and that is due to the high thermal capacity of the ocean water. The water should be warming as solar activity increases, but its current state is likely a result of the quiet minimum.

The heating of the ocean water enhances currents deeper down, while the water near the surface is relatively cooler as air leeches some of the energy off of it; eventually currents slow down as water gets closer to steady thermal state, and the water nearer to the surface is a bit more static, giving it time to retain heat in a smaller area/volume - this is only one example of the many thermodynamic processes going on.

The real killer of this hypothesis, for me anyways, is how the data has been interpreted. If one considers the non-uniformity and significant stretching of the lines drawing cause to effect, and more chiefly, the lack of apparent consideration for terrestrial, concurrent climate patterns, I do not consider this a viable data point for any sort of climate modeling, and so I will leave the heavy lifting to anyone that decides to more accurately identify the other important factors alongside the supposed correlations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2020 at 2:33 AM, Capricopia said:

@goldminor

Then someone just has to show how the major planets influence the sun and their cycles and this adds into the interplanetary clocking system that someone explored earlier this year.

Of course as scientists we know correlation does not equal causation and it could all be an interesting coincidence..

 

 

Some graphs I've seen of the variations of the Solar System Barycenter to Earth distance appear to contain min/max cycles not too unlike the 11 year solar cycle. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Drax Spacex said:

Some graphs I've seen of the variations of the Solar System Barycenter to Earth distance appear to contain min/max cycles not too unlike the 11 year solar cycle. 

That sounds like the interaction between Jupiter/Saturn's gravity and our orbit. Of course it also makes sense that the center of gravity - the barycenter - of the solar system shifts around based on where Jupiter/Saturn are(all of the planets, really, but these two most significantly) leading to measurable changes in the center of gravity.

Edited by Christopher S.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had an interesting comment interaction over at WUWT last week regarding this idea of mine. ... https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/08/08/upcoming-la-nina-winter-cooler-and-wetter-than-normal/#comment-3050564

Of note and to keep this brief, I have been surprised at how the 3.4 region appears to react much quicker than I ever thought possible. Now this may all be coincidental, but as I said over at WUWT any interested party can now keep track of this for themselves by watching the daily sunspots which have once again sparked up while also observing the daily 3.4 graph put out at Tropical Tidbits, ... nino34.png

Of current interest, note how over the last several days that temps in the 3.4 region have coincidentally spiked up as this new southern sunspot appeared two days ago while the northern sunspot group approaches the end of its travel. Also, note how closely the twist and turns on this graph correlates with new sunspot groups since the beginning of May. This is the perfect time to view this concept of mine as the quiet sun comes to life once again. This could all be coincidental, but everyone can watch this, and then make up their minds after a period of time to see if there is any validity to the concept. A picture is indeed worth many, many words.

One last note, Bob Weber over at WUWT who was initially skeptical did an analysis on correlation which shows this. I was grateful that he came forward with this as I do not have the ability to do similar. ... https://postimg.cc/bDmLQTcq

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have previously provided the link to this paper from NASA which explains the 40 year cycle in solar activity https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/science/plasma-flow.html 

As ice development in Antarctica surpasses the 1979 - 1990 average, it looks like it correlates with the 40 year cycle in the sun...

But of course as real scientists we know that correlation does not equal causation...

https://nsidc.org/arcti…/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Capricopia said:

I have previously provided the link to this paper from NASA which explains the 40 year cycle in solar activity https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/science/plasma-flow.html 

As ice development in Antarctica surpasses the 1979 - 1990 average, it looks like it correlates with the 40 year cycle in the sun...

But of course as real scientists we know that correlation does not equal causation...

https://nsidc.org/arcti…/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ 

These two things have nothing to do with one another. Moreover, the information I could gather from that webpage(your link is bad, by the way) does not suggest anything along the lines of what you're saying, and seems to use an arbitrary measure of sea ice over an area of ocean rather than a more objective measurement. You may want to just check this page's contents for a quick look at sea ice anomaly since the beginning of the 80's: https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index It certainly doesn't look like there's any 40-year cyclical patterns - and even if there was, it's going to take more than 40 years to observe it properly. Surely as a real scientist you know that, so it is odd that you'd even suggest a correlation at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, goldminor said:

One last note, Bob Weber over at WUWT who was initially skeptical did an analysis on correlation which shows this. I was grateful that he came forward with this as I do not have the ability to do similar. ... https://postimg.cc/bDmLQTcq

The conversations in the thread aside, the evidence is really not at all convincing. I'd like to believe your objective is to give ideas to others so that research may be conducted in a manner that it has not before, but the only thing which is presently established as fact from the exchange you're referring to is the uptick in TSI during higher periods of solar activity - not at all due to SH vs NH sunspot distribution - which is certainly not going to immediately start warming the ocean. Higher TSI will begin to warm the oceans at an above-average rate, but even within the exchanges on that thread you can find Bob referring to the lag between solar lows and highs(referring to activity), and the rather miniscule differences in oceanic temperature anomaly - that we're just now seeing the low activity from the end of SC24 manifesting(as a LN). LN/EN patterns generally take quite a bit of flux to define and take shape, which is why you don't generally see both patterns throughout the year, and why they have varying strengths and durations each time they take shape.

There're still various other factors to consider: cloud cover as a result of higher convective activity over certain parts of the ocean which feed major currents(is it more or less; this isn't presently a well-documented or well-recorded metric); positive/negative feedback from an El Niño/La Niña onto other parts of the ocean, which can also present more or less convective activity; reduction/changes in Earth's total albedo(reflects less light, absorbs more and heats at a higher rate) from reduced sea ice cover, de-glaciation, and variation in yearly concurrent cloud cover; lastly, the inherent chaos that you see with a phenomenon that forms as a result of all of these things in addition to global climate patterns over time, which itself is a system that MJO and ENSO are an integral part of.

In other words, there's a bit more to consider and study before awarding yourself with a Nobel prize of any sort. That hasn't seemed to occur to you at any point.

I'd like to believe that, but you seem fairly delusional. You have high confidence in something you can't even explain in proper terminology; you have overwhelming confirmation bias; you ignore counter-points simply because you are not equipped to counter arguments against your ideas. This may suffice for the superstitious, or those who cling to alternative science purely because it's different from conventional wisdom. But this is all(likely) driven by a desire to be recognized for your intelligence, and that just doesn't fly in the real world. Not unless you have an exorbitant amount of money and a clever way of going about this kind of thing. Neither seem to be the case.

Now, I don't see any benefit to making a personal conflict out of this discussion, but this all bears some dialogue; you expect us to do the heavy lifting and explain several times over why certain things you believe just aren't real(such as one or two sun spots causing instant warming of the tropics). That in and of itself is perfectly reasonable because we're only human, we can't know everything there is to know. 

You say you don't have the ability or the education to explain yourself, which mostly boils down to how to use MS Paint, but that's simply an excuse for why you don't go out of your way to learn. With that in mind, I think you're purposely keeping your explanations vague, so you feel rewarded when others proclaim there is at least some realism to the mystical nature of some of your statements(such as Bob explaining TSI to you). It really doesn't matter how you get your kicks, anyways. It's a common and unbreakable habit for an old man to stroke his own ego ad nauseum - to make prophetic statements instead of asking questions and expecting someone to sing your praises. Is that what you're doing? Most likely. You have the beginnings of a good idea, and would rather leverage that to play games, than to actually explore the idea in-depth and continue learning.

There's no merit to leading others along this train of thought, only for them to inevitably realize how many other factors there are to consider in this particular topic, and just how much work would need to be done to publish any meaningfully new, unique, substantial, and involved research. If you were to identify the call to action that usually comes with the beginnings of ideas or hypotheses such as yours, what would it be? Posting comments with unsubstantiated claims, or asking for more qualified individuals to consider dedicating time and energy to do more in-depth research on the basis of an interesting find? What is your reaction to being told that such time and energy necessary to make any considerable progress into this kind of research(such that it actually results in peer-review and publishing) is substantial - that some scientists have spent the greater part of their careers to accomplish such a feat? What is your reaction to being told that subjectively-loaded climate science is highly criticized by professionals and degenerates alike, and even objective climate research is prone to the same thing? My point is, unless there are some new developments, or you decide to pursue this idea more voraciously, we should just drop it. Pages of comments in the same spirit as yours or mine on the topic help nobody.

I apologize to others on this website, as the tone of my post seems quite to the contrary of SWL's objectives. This is a place where you are allowed to share ideas and believe anything you want to. I don't have the power or even the desire to act against that mantra. However, judging by the tone of some of the people from this website cited by goldminor, it may be a bad idea to bridge these two communities to one another, as rather strong, critical, and baseless attacks seem much too common there, and more pertinently that this was cited to fabricate validity to unsubstantiated claims("other" science).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Christopher S. said:

 

I apologize to others on this website, as the tone of my post seems quite to the contrary of SWL's objectives. This is a place where you are allowed to share ideas and believe anything you want to. I don't have the power or even the desire to act against that mantra. However, judging by the tone of some of the people from this website cited by goldminor, it may be a bad idea to bridge these two communities to one another, as rather strong, critical, and baseless attacks seem much too common there, and more pertinently that this was cited to fabricate validity to unsubstantiated claims("other" science).

Yet your superior ago can't help but attack my concept by making it personal. To whit your terminology such as the use of the word delusional. I can accept that this may be a flight of fancy on my part, but I have a hard time accepting that the entire 70 years of both the Silso and the MEI are correlated with the Silso preceding the MEI. You can keep your superior ego to yourself.

There is also the lie to your words "Now, I don't see any benefit to making a personal conflict out of this discussion ...". Then stop making it personal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • 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.