Growth of Cycle 25

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

40 minuten geleden, Newbie zei:

 

Dear Patrick, Sir, scientific method is built on trial, error, refinement of results and retesting. It is commendable that you were able to rectify any inaccuracies in your calculations through peer review. I therefore look forward to seeing your research published.

N.

Well, that could be a problem. Still under peer review. Above that I can’t afford open access… So the exact method… will stay after a paywall unfortunately…

[Jesterface23]

I forgot what NOAA or NASA account it was under in Instagram exactly, but apparently the solar maximum is expected through October 2024. Giving we'd need to wait 1 year and 1 month for that to go through.

Edited April 2 by Jesterface23

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

15 uren geleden, Jesterface23 zei:

I forgot what NOAA or NASA account it was under in Instagram exactly, but apparently the solar maximum is expected through October 2024. Giving we'd need to wait 1 year and 1 month for that to go through.

The current x-ray background level is the lowest since November 2022. This also goes along with today's daily SFU reading of 112.7. The lowest reading since November 30th, 2022.

Somebody can check the previous cycles when this happened?

Edited April 3 by Patrick P.A. Geryl

[tniickck]

nah the background is B3.3 we're totally cooked

[hamateur 1953]

https://solen.info/solar/history/  Yup. 🤣🤣

1 hour ago, tniickck said:

nah the background is B3.3 we're totally cooked

I did,  about six months ago.  I respectfully suggest you check cycle 19 using Jan Alvestad’s historical charts, you will see a terrifying plunge followed by a resurgence to the highest solar max In recorded history. I will post a link shortly.  Use the above link and select year 1958 the actual year solar maximum was recorded in.  You will clearly see the plunge. Incidentally a higher SFI was recorded the previous winter at 380.  However I think March or April was finally selected overall when peaking at 350 sfi.  This is entirely from memory and I might be incorrect.  Other examples are present in many cycles.  It is just how they seem to evolve.  Mike. The point I have tried to illustrate is that dives in solar flux and sunspot numbers are not uncommon at all.  In fact this is most likely the reason that smoothing numbers were developed long ago.  Currently we sit at a low point for sure, but it is very unlikely that SFI will stay this low for very long.  If we recorded 70 SFI I might believe Patrick was onto something.  Until that date I am content to await SC 25 further evolution.  

Edited April 3 by hamateur 1953
Link at top Patrick. I suggested he check this.

[hamateur 1953]

Editing again. Hopefully this gets merged.   Truth be told, I expected a dive but not this low to be sure. Nonetheless Hagrid, my chief advisor 🐈‍⬛on all things Spaceweather related isn’t worried and neither am I. 

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

2 uren geleden, hamateur 1953 zei:

Editing again. Hopefully this gets merged.   Truth be told, I expected a dive but not this low to be sure. Nonetheless Hagrid, my chief advisor 🐈‍⬛on all things Spaceweather related isn’t worried and neither am I. 

As always many naysayers in first instance, but no explicit numbers... 

[hamateur 1953]

This discussion needs to take place ( if at all) in unproven theories as you must know by now Patrick. All due respect. 

[Philalethes]

On 4/2/2024 at 5:56 AM, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

that that would be when the average polar field flips...

This just reminds me that you still haven't explained why you continue to make this claim when that's clearly not the case for all cycles; and that's using the same WSO polar field data that you're basing it on.

At this point most people agree that the flipping of the polar fields tends to occur sometime around maximum, but the exact relationship is far from clear. The WSO data itself just represents a certain part of the field, and there's not really any reason why that particular part would always coincide with maximum, nor does that seem to be the case. Take a look at e.g. this old chart (which I've updated now) of when the SSN minima and maxima happen relative to the month of the average field flip:

Here you can see that you'd be roughly correct for SC21 and SC22, but not at all for SC23 and SC24. For SC24 the flip didn't even happen near either of the two major peaks, but right in the gap between them.

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

35 minuten geleden, Philalethes zei:

This just reminds me that you still haven't explained why you continue to make this claim when that's clearly not the case for all cycles; and that's using the same WSO polar field data that you're basing it on.

At this point most people agree that the flipping of the polar fields tends to occur sometime around maximum, but the exact relationship is far from clear. The WSO data itself just represents a certain part of the field, and there's not really any reason why that particular part would always coincide with maximum, nor does that seem to be the case. Take a look at e.g. this old chart (which I've updated now) of when the SSN minima and maxima happen relative to the month of the average field flip:

Here you can see that you'd be roughly correct for SC21 and SC22, but not at all for SC23 and SC24. For SC24 the flip didn't even happen near either of the two major peaks, but right in the gap between them.

Old news. Published that here last year... Then everybody went nuts and I lost my sunspot calculations...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368575309_Solar_Max_has_Passed_January_2023

ALSO AN EXTREME IMPORTANT REMARK.

THE PRESENTED CHART IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG!

YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. ALREADY PUBLISHED LINK/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367021425_The_Anti-Phase_Solution_for_the_Average_Polar_Magnetic_Field

 

[Philalethes]

46 minutes ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

Old news.

But you still haven't explained it at all. In that paper you mention SC21 and SC22, which I already pointed out that agree with your claims; but you conveniently ignore SC23, and don't actually give any good explanation for SC24 either. If your "theory" (whatever it actually is) has to ignore data points that don't agree with it, then it's wrong, it's that simple.

And this is of course all ignoring the fact that you argued for a January maximum with such confidence, only to conveniently "find some errors" after being proven wrong by the actual data, and then postpone the maximum (now to June of 2023, and I wonder what you'll be saying if we get a new maximum sometime this year, I'm guessing you'll conveniently "find some errors" again).

So if that's the best you can do there's in other words nothing that would preclude something like a second and higher peak for the current cycle, nor does it appear that your models have any predictive value whatsoever.

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

25 minuten geleden, Philalethes zei:

But you still haven't explained it at all. In that paper you mention SC21 and SC22, which I already pointed out that agree with your claims; but you conveniently ignore SC23, and don't actually give any good explanation for SC24 either. If your "theory" (whatever it actually is) has to ignore data points that don't agree with it, then it's wrong, it's that simple.

And this is of course all ignoring the fact that you argued for a January maximum with such confidence, only to conveniently "find some errors" after being proven wrong by the actual data, and then postpone the maximum (now to June of 2023, and I wonder what you'll be saying if we get a new maximum sometime this year, I'm guessing you'll conveniently "find some errors" again).

So if that's the best you can do there's in other words nothing that would preclude something like a second and higher peak for the current cycle, nor does it appear that your models have any predictive value whatsoever.

We have only 4 cycles and 2 cycles point to the same mechanism (almost) as cycle 25. So we exclude the others. That mechanism becomes clear if you make the right chart and not the chart you are using
 

Read point 5 again…

The 13-month smoothed high will fall when the average flips…

It flipped in May. 
 

The solar flux in January 2023 was the second highest from this cycle. So not that bad either.

The 13-month smoothed high will fall at or 1 month before the average flip

Edited April 3 by Patrick P.A. Geryl

[Philalethes]

6 minutes ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

We have only 4 cycles and 2 cycles point to the same mechanism (almost) as cycle 25. So we exclude the others.

No offense, but this literally made me laugh out loud. That's not science, that's some of the most ridiculous cherry-picking imaginable.

6 minutes ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

The 13-month smoothed high will fall when the average flips…

Yeah, except in 50% of the cases so far, when the smoothed high occurs well after the average flip.

Edited April 3 by Philalethes
typo

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

1 minuut geleden, Philalethes zei:

No offense, but this literally made me laugh out loud. That's not science, that's some of the most ridiculous cherry-picking imaginable.

Yeah, except in 50% of the cases so far, when the smoothed high occurs well after the average flip.

Again… If you don’t use the right chart you will never understand.

[Philalethes]

3 minutes ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

Again… If you don’t use the right chart you will never understand.

If you think excluding 50% of your data points because they don't agree with your model is a scientifically reasonable approach, then I think you're the one who will never understand.

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

5 minuten geleden, Philalethes zei:

If you think excluding 50% of your data points because they don't agree with your model is a scientifically reasonable approach, then I think you're the one who will never understand.

Again, your chart is wrong. Basic mathematics. 
I learned in school when I was 13 years old that minus multiplied with minus is plus.

Astronomers use other math🤣🤣🤣🤔🤔🤔

Read the link before commenting again.

[Philalethes]

4 minutes ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

Again, your chart is wrong.

What's "wrong" about it? The data is taken directly from the published monthly smoothed sunspot numbers and the WSO polar field data, all I've done is plot it in a presentable format. And you literally just admitted that you just exclude SC23 and SC24 because they don't fit your ideas, so it sounds to me like it's your model there's something seriously wrong with.

Edited April 3 by Philalethes
typo

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

1 minuut geleden, Philalethes zei:

What's "wrong" about it? The data is taken directly from the published monthly smoothed sunspot numbers and the WSO polar field data? And you literally just admitted that you just exclude SC23 and SC24 because they don't fit your ideas, so it sounds to me like it's your model there's something seriously wrong with.

The reason astronomers can’t calculate anything is the following:
 

ALSO AN EXTREME IMPORTANT REMARK.

THE PRESENTED CHART IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG!

YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. ALREADY PUBLISHED LINK/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367021425_The_Anti-Phase_Solution_for_the_Average_Polar_Magnetic_Field

[Philalethes]

15 minutes ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

THE PRESENTED CHART IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG!

There's nothing wrong about it. What you're talking about there is what's "old news", because all you're really doing is flipping the negative values to positive, i.e. taking the absolute value, which doesn't actually change anything. We know that the field "teeters" around 0 around the maximum of the cycle, which is even more obvious in the HMI field data I've presented previously in the thread, but that doesn't explain anything you're claiming at all.

Look at SC23, for example. How do you explain that? Your own paper agrees that this flip occurred in early 2000, while the smoothed maximum for SC23 happened in late 2001, almost 2 full years later. And judging by your earlier response your explanation is, "eh, it doesn't fit, so we just exclude it"; that's not science.

Edited April 3 by Philalethes
typo

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

1 minuut geleden, Philalethes zei:

There's nothing wrong about it. What you're talking about there is what's "old news", because all you're really doing is flipping the negative values to positive, i.e. taking the absolute value, which doesn't actually change anything. We know that the field "teeters" around 0 around the maximum of the cycle, which is even more obvious in the HMI field data I've presented previously in the thread, but that doesn't explain anything you're claiming at all.

Look at SC23, for example. How do you explain that? Your own paper agrees that this flip occurred in early 2000, while the smoothed maximum for SC23 happened in late 2001, almost 2 full years later. And judging by your earlier response your explanation is, "eh, it doesn't fit, so we just exclude it"; that's not science.

Wooowww…

stop the presses🤣🤣🤣🤗🤗🤗

You just admitted the astronomers are wrong!

Now try to publish that!

Remark

the ones that made the mistake are the peer reviewers.

No chance you will be published…

 

[Philalethes]

1 minute ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

You just admitted the astronomers are wrong!

No, I explained that you seem to have zero idea what you're doing or talking about, and that your process is as far removed from being scientific as possible.

Again: explain SC23. Still waiting.

[Lawn Boy]

I notice that the Hamster hasn’t spoken up. I’m thinking he sitting back eating popcorn. This is a slugfest and I love it. You guys keep it up and one of the spectators is going to have an epiphany or eureka moment y’all just keep digging the evidence up.

Edited April 3 by Lawn Boy
Bad edit

[3gMike]

5 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

Old news. Published that here last year... Then everybody went nuts and I lost my sunspot calculations...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368575309_Solar_Max_has_Passed_January_2023

ALSO AN EXTREME IMPORTANT REMARK.

THE PRESENTED CHART IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG!

YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. ALREADY PUBLISHED LINK/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367021425_The_Anti-Phase_Solution_for_the_Average_Polar_Magnetic_Field

 

Patrick, if you refuse to behave rationally, and continue to fail to produce real scientific evidence to support your claims, you need to remove your contributions to the Unproven Theories zone. 

[Newbie]

3 hours ago, Lawn Boy said:

I notice that the Hamster hasn’t spoken up. I’m thinking he sitting back eating popcorn. This is a slugfest and I love it. You guys keep it up and one of the spectators is going to have an epiphany or eureka moment y’all just keep digging the evidence up.

Bad edit or Bad Grandma? 🤣

@Lawn Boy are you selling tickets?
@Lawn Boy Edit: Bad Grandma a joke meaning bad grammar!

…and no I’m not picking on your post just making a joke. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding! It was unintentional.

N.

Edited April 3 by Newbie
😊

[Lawn Boy]

Poor dictation and edit before I hit send. I’m not sure about my grandma and how she got into this discussion.

Yes, I understood. My dry humor does not always get a laugh.

Edited April 3 by Lawn Boy