Current knowledge of Solar-Terrestrial Coupling

[Christopher S.]

Javier, I haven't seen you attacked once since you came here. As a matter of fact, I've been part of your engagement in petty, reciprocal dislike spamming to the extent that I actually had the webmaster get involved. If you consider a couple of dislikes an attack, and my one comment criticizing the nature of goldminor's narrative(because it's only just that) a "battlefield", then I don't think this community is losing anything. If you can't handle disagreement and plain terms aren't plain enough, it usually takes a personal edge to get the proper gears turning in one's head about what is actually happening. It's a shame that out of all the possible reactions, you've chosen the victim playing strategy instead of up-playing whatever belief or ideas you actually have been "attacked" for. The result is that I just look like a complete ass, rather than that what I've said is baseless, and for a lot of people who are extremely sensitive to that kind of thing, that's enough to fallaciously disregard this perspective and sheepishly lend you - the victim in this case - support. Emotional support, that is. Here I thought we wanted to talk about the same thing.

You can't expect to be right about everything and play victim when someone points out how it's wrong/might be wrong, especially when your arrogance is called out. That just sandbags the conversation and acts to manipulate others to your "side" in a context where sides are counter-intuitive to learning/the discovery of new ideas(and so too is arrogance). Both the act of miming back what you've perceived as a personal attack(i.e. your ego is struck, so you attempt to strike mine in similar fashion), and choosing to jump onto the derailing train into the chasm of a dead conversation(i.e. this thread is now a "battlefield" apparently), are not acts of those who actually wanted to have the conversation about the original, non-personal topic in the first place.

That's all I had to say, so feel free to continue on-topic.

Edited August 14, 2020 by Christopher S.
Despite forfeiting the moral high ground, I thought to summarize the present situation for what it is.

[Drax Spacex]

10 hours ago, Javier said:

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.

It is the facebook syndrome, a blight that eventually infects all online forums.  Any attempt at reasoned, civil, coherent, and intelligent discourse will soon be diverted and derailed, ultimately devolving into unprovoked personal attacks and diatribes.  Any substantial and pertient discussions dissipate and melt away into a cauldron of mean-spirited comments of irrelevent vehemence.

But I would encourage you not to be discouraged or dissuaded from introducing topics and discussions that are relevant to this forum.  Apply a mental filter to block out the extraneous comments.  The prudent reader will do the same.

[goldminor]

On 8/14/2020 at 1:51 AM, goldminor said:

 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.

 

I misstated the above comment. I meant to say this "I find it hard to grasp that 70 years of correlation between the two graphs does not hold some significance. Just about every twist and turn of the Silso translates to temp changes on the MEI graph over the 70 years of the graph. That would have to be the greatest coincidence in the world of science.".

Regarding what I see as a strong correlation between the Silso excess chart, and NOAAs MEI, that correlation is apparent to me as I view the two graphs. What need is there for me to prove through mathematical analyses what the two charts clearly show? The math has already been done in producing both of those charts. The only points in question were the disparities which can be seen around the period of the solar minimum for any given solar cycle. I think that I have the answer or part of the answer as to what occurs during the minimum period, but obviously, it will take more time to connect the dots to form a more complete picture.