Southern field close to flipping?

[3gMike]

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

See the post above from Capricopia

What I see from that post is that the times when the current sheet is at maximum tilt are reasonably consistent with the periods between first and last flip of the polar fields. It does nothing to explain the variation between cycles. So far as I can see from available data solar max could occur as early as end of 2023, or it could be delayed until 2025/2026. Again, what convinces you that it will be end of 2023?

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

4 uren geleden, 3gMike zei:

What I see from that post is that the times when the current sheet is at maximum tilt are reasonably consistent with the periods between first and last flip of the polar fields. It does nothing to explain the variation between cycles. So far as I can see from available data solar max could occur as early as end of 2023, or it could be delayed until 2025/2026. Again, what convinces you that it will be end of 2023?

The sunspot cycle is linear. Makes things simple. Highest sunspot number 01/2014.

All fields above 70 at 25/05/2012.  Time till 01/2014….

All fields above 70…30/04/2022

Time till highest sunspot number….🤔😊

Edited September 5, 2022 by Patrick P.A. Geryl

[3gMike]

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

All fields above 70 at 25/05/2012.

Can you please explain - What fields, and where is that recorded ?

[Archmonoth]

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

The sunspot cycle is linear. Makes things simple. Highest sunspot number 01/2014.

All fields above 70 at 25/05/2012.  Time till 01/2014….

All fields above 70…30/04/2022

Time till highest sunspot number….🤔😊

You are suggesting the highest number on the magnetic field dictates an 18-month prediction of the solar max?

 

I really wish you explained your reasoning a bit more.

 

I am guessing what you mean by "fields" and trying to interpret your vague posts, at the same time you are very certain about a date like 2023, with little explanation. 

 

Edited September 5, 2022 by Archmonoth

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

11 uren geleden, 3gMike zei:

Can you please explain - What fields, and where is that recorded ?

WSO - Computed "Tilt" Angle of the HCS


http://wso.stanford.edu/Tilts.html
 

[Archmonoth]

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

WSO - Computed "Tilt" Angle of the HCS


http://wso.stanford.edu/Tilts.html
 

If you are suggesting the higher the number is relevant, the high point in 2014 was also reached in February of 2013. It reached the high point multiple times. 

 

Why are you avoiding any explanation?

[3gMike]

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

WSO - Computed "Tilt" Angle of the HCS


http://wso.stanford.edu/Tilts.html
 

So it seems that a discussion which you started on the basis that flipping of polar fields was a trigger for increased activity, and imminent approach of solar maximum, has now transformed into a claim that tilt of the current sheet is the trigger.

I accept that it may be possible that the two events are linked in some way, but without evidence to support your claim(s) it is difficult to come to any understanding.

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

The polar field measurements where restored after a long blackout. However, there are no data for the last 4 weeks😱

More important news. A high ranking journal is researching my claim that astronomers made an essential fault in the interpretation of the strength of the polar fields.

fingers crossed…

(PDF) 2 Solutions for the Axial Dipole Field: In Phase and in Anti-Phase


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333445984_2_Solutions_for_the_Axial_Dipole_Field_In_Phase_and_in_Anti-Phase

[hamateur 1953]

Just curious. compare cycle 19 and 25.  no double peak on 19. old figures were ssn of 201 I think for 19 and new figures around 285 ssn ( i was around during 19 when the “ old” methods were used.  comparing apples and oranges probably here but use the “ new” datasets for comparisons would seem intelligent. 

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

The polar field measurements where restored after a long blackout. However, there are no data for the last 4 weeks😱

More important news. A high ranking journal is researching my claim that astronomers made an essential fault in the interpretation of the strength of the polar fields.

fingers crossed…

(PDF) 2 Solutions for the Axial Dipole Field: In Phase and in Anti-Phase


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333445984_2_Solutions_for_the_Axial_Dipole_Field_In_Phase_and_in_Anti-Phase

 

[3gMike]

1 hour ago, hamateur 1953 said:

Just curious. compare cycle 19 and 25.  no double peak on 19. old figures were ssn of 201 I think for 19 and new figures around 285 ssn ( i was around during 19 when the “ old” methods were used.  comparing apples and oranges probably here but use the “ new” datasets for comparisons would seem intelligent. 

 

Here is a visual comparison taken from the Solar Cycle page. It really emphasises how weak Cycle 25 is at present, but I am not sure that it tells us much about how it will develop in future.

[hamateur 1953]

Yes. it certainly emphasizes this wuss of a cycle indeed.  Small wonder I am continually disappointed!🤣🤣

1 hour ago, 3gMike said:

Here is a visual comparison taken from the Solar Cycle page. It really emphasises how weak Cycle 25 is at present, but I am not sure that it tells us much about how it will develop in future.

 

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

The average polar field strength is quite close to flipping in a few months. This means we are near Solar maximum. 

Meanwhile the review process in the high ranking journal goes further…. See higher…

[dave]

A point.

Why does SILSO uses 13 months (one year 'window') to smooth data pertaining to the Sun?

A moving window of a year is chosen in time-series analysis  of economic and geographical data to suppress known seasonal influences.

Otherwise, there is no particular rationale for it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

4 uren geleden, dave zei:

A point.

Why does SILSO uses 13 months (one year 'window') to smooth data pertaining to the Sun?

A moving window of a year is chosen in time-series analysis  of economic and geographical data to suppress known seasonal influences.

Otherwise, there is no particular rationale for it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1) (PDF) Calculating the Exact Strength of Solar Cycle 25 using 365 Days Smoothing
good point!

we want to promote 365 days Smoothing… works better…

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356556167_Calculating_the_Exact_Strength_of_Solar_Cycle_25_using_365_Days_Smoothing

[WildWill]

 

On 11/17/2022 at 10:26 AM, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

(1) (PDF) Calculating the Exact Strength of Solar Cycle 25 using 365 Days Smoothing
good point!

we want to promote 365 days Smoothing… works better…

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356556167_Calculating_the_Exact_Strength_of_Solar_Cycle_25_using_365_Days_Smoothing

Howdy Y'all!

A 13 month cycle is used because of the 11 year cycle.  10*13 month->10 yrs 10 mod. Vs 11 years -> ~132. It provides a better approximation to the "norm", particularly for comparisons, but also to eliminate "noise" associated with seasonal variations. 
 The established and currently accepted smoothing function actually evolved from a 12 month cycle, for the reasons cited above.  I believe your logic and methodology in your citation are flawed.

Just remember, we are not looking at the earth's revolution around the sun --> 1 Gregorian Year. We are looking at the half magnetic cycle of the sun -> ~11 years (132 months +/- 😉) and we use a base 10 number system. 

Personally, I think looking at the data using a natural number system (Base e) would be worth investigating and could prove quite interesting...  

One of the greatest limitations of our current systems and conventions is the inability to produce exact numbers or count. So much is confined to the set of rational numbers -> which is in reality, equivalent to the set of Integers). 
Whereas, the set of irrational numbers is a closed set without any natural subsets. The set of "Real" Numbers is merely an algebraic convention used for convenience.  It contains two closed disjoint sets - Rational and irrational numbers. In reality (pun intended), Everything we can truley comprehend and work with in "our mathematics" is within the set of rational numbers.  Which, we can make equivalent to the set of Integers, just by using different notation. Thus, all of the actual numbers "real numbers" that we can compute and display are integers. We can introduce non-integers in intermediary steps, however, they need to be eliminated in additional intermediate steps, before a "real" answer can be presented. Real is in quotes because we are not referring to the set of real numbers, but actually rational numbers - which are the only real numbers we can represent with our counting system.

We have to create a unique symbol for every single number which we want to work with. The results of operations on these numbers can only be expressed as the whole expression instead of a single "number" (matrix, array, tensor... etc).

For example, the only way we can really express Pi * e is by writing (Pi * e).  There is no other symbols for the result. It's the difference between countably and uncountably infinite set. The set of Real Numbers is a convenience.
But I digress! lol. A bit philosophical I suppose, but we haven't even considered what we call imaginary numbers.  But, the way we work with imaginary numbers the same way we deal with irrational numbers, even though it may not be intuitive to most. We introduce unique symbols for every single member of the set, as opposed to integers which can be expressed as a string of 10 symbols. 
 

So, that's why they use 13 month smoothing and more than you ever wanted to know about "mathematical philosophy" according  to Wild Will.

We could actually work with these numbers without having to eliminate them (or truncate -> replace with an integer) in any result if only we had analog computers. Or so many believe and expect). There are a large set of types of problems which are expected to be solvable using analog computers. I think before we can get there we will need to define and understand a lot more about operating on/with analog mathematics...

All Y'all Have Ya a Nice Day!

WnA

PS: Hope all y'all got better weather than we do here...  S Texas  - it's 33*F below normal and timing with no end in sight!

 

 

 

)

Edited November 20, 2022 by WildWill
Part of the post was lost somewhere!

[dave]

If you average the data points for the montns January-December inclusive for, say, 1876 you get a 12 month average.

Where to center it - this number 'for' 1876? It has to be half way through the year at the boundary between June and July. This is not a problem if you are graphing, but it is a problem if - like most 19th Century scientists you publish tables and not graphs.  Are you going to insert the new number so as to replace the original number for June or replace the original number for July? You wish you had not chosen the even number 12!

However, you think about the fact that you can average the 12 months December 1875-November 1876. This new number must logically  be centered at the boundary between May and June 1876. Well now you know what to do. You have two 12 point averages -two numbers TIED to June 1876, one at the beginning and one at the end of the month. You PROCLAIM the number you are going to put in the place in the table held heretofore by 'June' to be the average of these two averages. And so on you go. For July you will use December 1876-January 1877. There is nothing special about calendar years of course.

In other words you have a smoothing formula. The smoothing formula of R. Wolf published in 1875 and still used by SILSO. It requires 13 points to work out, but this is only because you need to gather enough data to make two 12 point averages offset by one month. Everything is still 12 point in essence.

The formula is mathematically equivalent to making an 11 point moving average centered on the month you wish to replace with a smoothed value and making a similar 13 point moving average; and averaging the averages. This might seem a little more intuitive. Overshooting and undershooting 12.

If anyone has a reference for R. Wolf where he states in print that the multi-year sunspot cycle was in his mind when making up this formula for smoothing his monthly data it would be interesting.

Just to show how the smoothing works, here are the 13 most recent monthly numbers from SILSO displayed in different ways.  April is the last month which can be smoothed with the available data. SILSO replaces  84.0 with 73.1.

 Oct    Nov(2021)                              April(2022)                                     Sep.   Oct.    

37.4   34.8   67.5   55.3   60.9   78.6     84.0     96.5   70.3   91.4   75.4   96.3                12-point Average  70.7

                                                                                                                                                                 2-point Average  73.1

          34.8   67.5   55.3   60.9   78.6     84.0     96.5   70.3   91.4   75.4   96.3  95.4       12-point Average  75.5

 

 

37.4   34.8   67.5   55.3   60.9   78.6     84.0     98.5   70.3   91.4   75.4   96.3  95.4        13-point Average   72.6

                                                                                                                                                                  2-point  Average  73.1

          34.8   67.5   55.3   60.9   78.6     84.0     98.5   70.3   91.4   75.4   96.3                  11-point  Average   73.7

 

SILSO smoothed                                     73.1

 

[hamateur 1953]

On 11/10/2022 at 4:30 AM, 3gMike said:

Here is a visual comparison taken from the Solar Cycle page. It really emphasises how weak Cycle 25 is at present, but I am not sure that it tells us much about how it will develop in future.

It just occurred to me that we may have a conspiracy afoot here: Something or someone is trying to “ Flatten the curve” without including us hams and space weather enthusiasts!  Best we stay alert here kids! 

[dave]

In forecasting practice there is something called the 'naive forecast.' It predicts a repeat of what happened the last time.

This is actually a pretty good method as well as requiring no effort! It is not a wild guess because it simply uses the most up-to-date piece of real life experience. For example, if you want to know whether it will rain tomorrow or not, look ouside. If it is wet say yes; if it is dry, say no. In London this works 70% of the time. This beats a coin toss. The reason is that weather patterns tend to live for several days. 

The naive forecast for Cycle 25 was that it  would be like Cycle 24 -  start strong but, overall, be weak. So far it has been quite accurate.

 

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

It looks like the southern field has flipped for good from negative to positive. The northern field weakened again. So the sunspots in the north have to wait some time more to reach there strongest potential… High cycle months away…

I had some discussions with Scott McIntosh on Twitter. He still believes in a strong cycle. I said he overlooked the Terminator against the start of the sunspot cycle… 25 months after November 2019 (365 days Smoothing)… way to late against other cycles… after three failed attempts he still won’t give up…

My calculation seems to become spot on…

(PDF) Calculating the Exact Strength of Solar Cycle 25 using 365 Days Smoothing
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356556167_Calculating_the_Exact_Strength_of_Solar_Cycle_25_using_365_Days_Smoothing

[Archmonoth]

Flux is already a rolling average, so using the flux changes to validate a flattened curve isn't saying anything. 

 

Saying the sunspot average corelates to solar activity is also not saying anything, since sunspots produce flares. 

 

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it doesn't sound like Patrick is saying anything, while trying to predict a solar cycle. Also sharing a 1-sided conversation about someone trying to convince him, seems questionable. 

 

Naive prediction seems like Bayesian inference, it works, but doesn't illuminate the mechanisms of the system, just the frequency. 

[WildWill]

On 12/4/2022 at 1:18 AM, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

It looks like the southern field has flipped for good from negative to positive. The northern field weakened again. So the sunspots in the north have to wait some time more to reach there strongest potential… High cycle months away…

I had some discussions with Scott McIntosh on Twitter. He still believes in a strong cycle. I said he overlooked the Terminator against the start of the sunspot cycle… 25 months after November 2019 (365 days Smoothing)… way to late against other cycles… after three failed attempts he still won’t give up…

My calculation seems to become spot on…

(PDF) Calculating the Exact Strength of Solar Cycle 25 using 365 Days Smoothing
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356556167_Calculating_the_Exact_Strength_of_Solar_Cycle_25_using_365_Days_Smoothing

Hi P,

can we hold you to this? 
ive been watching the magnetic field models on GONG. Have a look fer yourself. It doesn't appear to me that the southern field has flipped. 

Have you anything tangible to share with us? Some data that supports your position/belief?  
 

if the southern field has flipped, shouldn’t all the AR’ on the sun have the same polarity leading? We certainly don’t see this. 

I don't really understand why you are still pushing your 365 day smoothing with regards to the southern field flipping. And citing yourself and no one else isn't gonna get ya published... of course we could all be wrong! Or you're paranoid...  or perhaps both. Maybe it’s all just a really bad dream I’m having…

 I am happy you have figured it all out in your world, but I don't think you've figured it all out in the world where most of us live...

hey, anyways, good luck with that. Hope it works out fer ya!

W

On 12/4/2022 at 1:43 PM, Archmonoth said:

Flux is already a rolling average, so using the flux changes to validate a flattened curve isn't saying anything. 

 

Saying the sunspot average corelates to solar activity is also not saying anything, since sunspots produce flares. 

 

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it doesn't sound like Patrick is saying anything, while trying to predict a solar cycle. Also sharing a 1-sided conversation about someone trying to convince him, seems questionable. 

 

Naive prediction seems like Bayesian inference, it works, but doesn't illuminate the mechanisms of the system, just the frequency. 

Howdy,

Im not quite sure you are correct in saying Flux is already a rolling average. I think you should dig a bit deeper into the data and how it’s processed and presented. 
 

I think the data is at like 2 or 10 second intervals between samplings. What we see on the our website comes from the SWPC at NOAA - at least you can find it there, It originates on GEOS 16. All the values you see are instantaneous values. You couldn’t see the peaks if you used any kind of smoothing…   There may be a number of rolling averages out there, but what we see on the SpaceWeatherLive homepage is not smoothed, but instantaneous. We do see an average presented. But the raw data and that presented, but the underlying data and that presented on the chart is all instantaneous values.

Cheers!

WnA

Edited January 4, 2023 by WildWill

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

2022:10:27_21h:07m:13s    49N   30S   10Avg  
2022:11:06_21h:07m:13s    61N   26S   17Avg    
2022:11:16_21h:07m:13s    44N    1S   21Avg   
2022:11:26_21h:07m:13s    44N   -1S   23Avg   
2022:12:06_21h:07m:13s    15N  -30S   22Avg   
2022:12:16_21h:07m:13s    23N    4S    9Avg   

[Jesterface23]

Given it keeps flipping, I take it it is to be determined as how most things with space weather go. So probably multiple more months before we know for sure.

[WildWill]

On 12/4/2022 at 1:43 PM, Archmonoth said:

Flux is already a rolling average, so using the flux changes to validate a flattened curve isn't saying anything. 

 

Saying the sunspot average corelates to solar activity is also not saying anything, since sunspots produce flares. 

 

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it doesn't sound like Patrick is saying anything, while trying to predict a solar cycle. Also sharing a 1-sided conversation about someone trying to convince him, seems questionable. 

 

Naive prediction seems like Bayesian inference, it works, but doesn't illuminate the mechanisms of the system, just the frequency. 

Howdy All Y’all,

I stand corrected. The data from NOAA, for X-Ray Flux is 1 minute and 5 minutes averages. While it’s an average, it is not a rolling average. Check it out here:

https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/goes-x-ray-flux
 

Ya know, I really don’t mind being wrong, cause it means I’m learning something new! And I like that, a lot.

All Y’all have ya a great day!

WnA

 

[Archmonoth]

3 hours ago, WildWill said:

I stand corrected. The data from NOAA, for X-Ray Flux is 1 minute and 5 minutes averages. While it’s an average, it is not a rolling average.

 

I was wrong too, it's not a rolling average. My criticism of Patrick is that he averages out something to the point where it fits in his vague descriptions.