Discussing an X-Flare Prediction

[Bedreamon]

These are two preprint research papers by Patrick Geryl (who I think is actually on this forum) that are about SC25 and predicting a very, very, VERY short-term future superflare event. Scarily short-term, IMO. I'm surprised nobody's talked about them, so I decided to bring them up:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348917006_Electromagnetic_Waves_and_Massive_X-Class_Flares

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348917424_Relating_the_Polar_Magnetic_Fields_to_the_Onset_of_Solar_Cycle_25_and_a_Significant_X-Class_Flare_Event

The thing that stuck out to me was the prediction of an >X100 flare between June-July 2021. Something about that just seems... too extreme AND specific, considering how the second link uses this as one of its figures:

 

I'm gonna come right out and say that I'm a paranoid worrier, and worry that this'll actually happen and be geoeffective. Anybody got any additional thoughts/insight? I feel that, even if SC25 is a big cycle similar to SC21/SC22 like Scott McIntosh of NCAR predicts, this value might be way too up-there.

Edited February 17, 2021 by Bedreamon

[helios]

The Author uses the typical methods of astrology (Does not only refer to the alignment of the planets);
If you make a large enough number of predictions, some of them will come true.

And what would astrology be without doomsday predictions ...

Don't worry, no one can predict flares over such a period of time and the sun has (unfortunately) calmed down again.
But even in the worst case, we would survive an X100 flare without significant problems.

 

[Isatsuki San]

5 hours ago, Bedreamon said:

Estos son dos artículos de investigación preimpresos de Patrick Geryl (quien creo que está en este foro) que tratan sobre SC25 y predicen un evento de superflare futuro muy, muy, MUY a corto plazo. Aterradoramente a corto plazo, en mi opinión. Me sorprende que nadie ha hablado de ellos, así que decidí criarlos:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348917006_Electromagnetic_Waves_and_Massive_X-Class_Flares

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348917424_Relating_the_Polar_Magnetic_Fields_to_the_Onset_of_Solar_Cycle_25_and_a_Significant_X-Class_Flare_Event

Lo que Me llamó la atención la  predicción de un brote> X100 entre junio y julio de 2021. Algo sobre eso simplemente parece ... demasiado extremo Y específico, considerando cómo el segundo enlace usa esto como una de sus cifras:

 

Voy a decir que soy un preocupado paranoico y que me preocupa que esto suceda y sea geoeficaz. ¿Alguien tiene alguna idea o idea adicional?  Siento que, incluso si SC25 es un gran ciclo similar a SC21 / SC22 como predice Scott McIntosh de NCAR, este valor podría ser demasiado alto.

It seems to me, an event x100 is impossible to happen and more at the beginning of a solar cycle like this if the carriptong event has 12 percent to happen, that the carriptong is said is an article that was x45, the event that is said here x100 which will be 2 times stronger than carriptong I take it as 0.1 percent

[Bedreamon]

5 hours ago, helios said:

The Author uses the typical methods of astrology (Does not only refer to the alignment of the planets);
If you make a large enough number of predictions, some of them will come true.

And what would astrology be without doomsday predictions ...

That's true. Like I said though, this guy posts on here quiet a bit, so that's why I was curious about what people think about this prediction or whatever it is.

[Christopher S.]

12 hours ago, helios said:

The Author uses the typical methods of astrology

While Geryl does seem to be on a completely different page than a lot of scientists and science-enthusiasts, what he's contributed to his arguments is not even remotely what could be called "typical". Typical astrology is horoscopes, zodiacs, attenuating crystals of inert nature(but don't tell the hippies that), and yes - predictions of unfounded and illogical nature. The only bit of this Geryl is guilty of is that last bit, and only really once I would say(when he claimed m7.0+ Earthquakes were possible due to planet alignments, but there's more to it than that if you actually bother to read his research).

Yeah, making predictions that are entirely vague and ambiguous, i.e. "It could rain this month" and contributing it to something that could not possibly be the only factor which makes it possible for rain to occur, does seem odd if not outright suspicious, but he's neither predicting doomsday nor basing his predictions on mysticism. Just because you don't agree with somebody, doesn't mean you should discredit every bit of effort they have put into creating a convincing case(especially when your only grasp of what has been presented to you, is that it is some form of mysticism, which just serves to make you appear ignorant and intolerant - two qualities that are unbecoming of anyone who actually respects science).

You may also consider that these are research papers, written solely by one person, and in this case it hasn't been peer-reviewed yet. The benefits of editors and peer-reviews can be argued here, in that another pair of eyes would catch something as potentially inflammatory(to those outside of the specialized field of study) as this. You need to consider that nobody has yet made the argument to Geryl that the figure he has placed in the table above looks scary, and really has no basis for being what it is. It could simply be a much smaller number while retaining the intended significance and staying true to the point he wishes to make, so that(among other things) potentially uninformed viewers of the article do not wander into a preprint and take his word for gospel, spreading misinformation on a forum or some such. It is awaiting revision and publishing from people in qualified fields, not awaiting ridicule from random people on a forum.

You may, of course, feel free to ridicule the final and published version of the research, but at that stage it would most likely omit such bombastic figures.

To be more specific, this is not a press release that speaks about the end of the world, nor is it an article published in a journal recognized by the scientific community. This(specifically, the ">x100?" prediction) is one person's subjective touch on their prediction of a trend(specifically, the activity of SC25 rivaling that of past cycles or even surpassing), most likely meant to invoke concern or emphasize the thesis. The target of this hyperbole was never meant to be enthusiasts of Space Weather - it was meant to be other researchers. Perhaps it is such a ludicrously large prediction so as to spark the curiosity of others, leading to a more genuine discourse and argument. I understand why he may do something like this; getting people to argue sincerely and passionately about something requires their willingness to take time and attention away from other matters in their lives. It is simply not very likely, without making your own argument loudly and making it stand out, that anyone would come along and give that to him and his research. In fact, unfortunately, that has so far only created the issue seen here, where @helios has dismissed it without a real basis for doing so, and others here simply accept this baseless dismissal. This can really take the wind out of Geryl's sails; discrediting him harshly and failing to explain why on the level of an intellectual. It also serves to illustrate the difference between trolls on the internet, and genuinely curious individuals.

If I cared to suggest or request some amendment to the behavior shown so far, I would ask that you actually read his research before: 

1. Spreading misinformation, as this is the worst thing you could possibly do in life(apart from violence or abuse)
2. Tearing him down
3. Panicking

It actually serves nobody to disagree here, but I suppose it is everyone's right to do so.

[Archmonoth]

On 2/17/2021 at 8:11 AM, Bedreamon said:

These are two preprint research papers by Patrick Geryl (who I think is actually on this forum)

....

.Anybody got any additional thoughts/insight?

 

 

Patrick sabotages his own research with maniacal predictions. 

 

Lots of information, thin conclusions. 

[Bedreamon]

It was mostly the high as hell "X-Ray Class" value that stuck out. The highest that's been documented was I believe an X28-45 during the 2003 Halloween storm, as the one in 1859 was... well, in a time where we didn't have this kind of analytical tech. And also, assuming that SC25 is on par with SC21/22 like that NCAR researcher predicts, something like an >X100 just feels like an obscenely high placeholder. I think one of Geryl's previous papers said something along the lines of an >X10 between June to December, which, while not at all certain or even uncertain, makes more tangible sense (I guess) than >X100.

That's mostly where the discussion should come from. I didn't see anything in the preprint that would make the end result be something THAT high.

[Isatsuki San]

1 hour ago, Bedreamon said:

Fue principalmente el alto valor de "Clase de rayos X" lo que sobresalió. Lo más alto que se ha documentado fue, creo, un X28-45 durante la tormenta de Halloween de 2003, como lo fue el de 1859 ... bueno, en un momento en el que no teníamos este tipo de tecnología analítica. Y también, asumiendo que SC25 está a la par con SC21 / 22 como predice el investigador de NCAR, algo así como un> X100 simplemente se siente como un marcador de posición obscenamente alto. Creo que uno de los artículos anteriores de Geryl decía algo parecido a un> X10 entre junio y diciembre, lo que, aunque no es del todo seguro o incluso incierto, tiene un sentido más tangible (supongo) que> X100.

De ahí es principalmente de donde debería provenir la discusión. No vi nada en la preimpresión que hiciera que el resultado final fuera TAN alto.

It is my opinion, from this discussion with the x100, I do not think it is very possible, previously before this minimum solar there were solar macha of betta gaming classes that only sometimes threw solar flares class c, but not solar flares m, some were decomposing and Well the only solar flare that I shot was a small one but I think it was for a fillament, to me it seems in June or July or even August we are going to see a class x solar flare but not a powerful one, I think a class x level 1 or even level 4 calculated the maximum

I mean the maximum, that it could cause in this cycle time, I have a prediction about this solar cycle 25 of how many solar cells I could see in the solar maximum, but I will say it at the end of years to see if I am right or wrong,

3 minutes ago, Isatsuki San said:

It is my opinion, from this discussion with the x100, I do not think it is very possible, previously before this minimum solar there were solar macha of betta gaming classes that only sometimes threw solar flares class c, but not solar flares m, some were decomposing and Well the only solar flare that I shot was a small one but I think it was for a fillament, to me it seems in June or July or even August we are going to see a class x solar flare but not a powerful one, I think a class x level 1 or even level 4 calculated the maximum

 

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

My publication is based on the 'Terminator'. If the 'Terminator' happens in March, than there is a possibility of high sunspot activity as predicted by McIntosh. If there is no'Terminator', than the Sun's activity will be lower. I found a theory to calculate the 'Terminator' with the polar fields. However, there were no measurements in a crucial time frame, so I need to make some guesses...

Anyway, the new sunspot has this formula:

 

Sunspot 2803 (rotated into view February 18) / February 11 / Nothern Hemisphere

 February 11 (23:00)

February 10 (18:30) – 13 (04:15), 2021 Triple Line Up   Mercury - Venus – Jupiter

February 7 (04:15) – 12 (10:45), 2021 Triple Line Up   Vesta - Venus – Pallas

February 11 (23:00) –  12 (17:30), 2021: Conjunction Mercury – Vesta and the Sun

 On February 20 we have this new sunspot

 

February 20 (12:15)

February 18 (17:15) – 21 (00:15), 2021: Conjunction Venus – Jupiter and the Sun

February 20 (12:15) – 21 (23:30), 2021 Triple Line Up   Vesta - Mercury - Venus

February 20 (12:15) – 23 (02:30), 2021 Triple Line Up   Pallas - Venus – Earth

Several of the line ups are the same as sunspot 2802. It will be interesting to see...

February 20, 2021

January 24 (03:00) – March 11, 2021 (11:00), 2020 Triple Line Up   Pluto -  Jupiter – Pallas

February 9 (08:00) – 27 (21:30), 2021: Conjunction Chiron - Ceres and the Sun

February 16 (02:15) – 22 (07:15), 2021 Triple Line Up   Chiron – Ceres – Mercury

February 18 (17:15) – 21 (00:15), 2021: Conjunction Venus – Jupiter and the Sun

February 18 (22:00) – 20 (01:00), 2021: Opposition Mercury - Ceres across the Sun

February 20 (12:15) – 21 (23:30), 2021 Triple Line Up   Vesta - Mercury - Venus

February 20 (12:15) – 23 (02:30), 2021 Triple Line Up   Pallas - Venus – Earth

 

 

Mcintosh et al predicted a large sunspot cycle IF THE TERMINATOR WAS EARLY. They were wrong on the early part...

I explained that in a paper that was almost published... But they found it worthwhile to be published on the official site ESSOAR in September 2020 here:

https://www.essoar.org/doi/10.1002/essoar.10504257.1

 

Conclusion: Large X flares (X15) are INDEED possible this year... If the Terminator happens between next month and July 2021...

Edited February 19, 2021 by Patrick Geryl
Sunspot 2803

[Archmonoth]

12 hours ago, Patrick Geryl said:

My publication is based on the 'Terminator'. If the 'Terminator' happens in March, than there is a possibility of high sunspot activity as predicted by McIntosh. 

...

Conclusion: Large X flares (X15) are INDEED possible this year... If the Terminator happens between next month and July 2021...

 

 

Possibility is a reflection of knowledge, so of course its POSSIBLE. 

 

12 hours ago, Patrick Geryl said:

Anyway, the new sunspot has this formula:

 

 

Calling it a formula doesn't make it accurate. 

[Bedreamon]

I'm not doubting the potential of there being X-Class flares, but predicting within the timespan of June-December, or June-July even, really doesn't make sense to me. I think I explained my viewpoint on the other thread about this as well: