Southern field close to flipping?

[3gMike]

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

2023:01:05_21h:07m:13s     2N  -10S    6Avg   20nhz filt:   41Nf    3Sf   19Avgf

Solar max is here!

As predicted the northern field is close to flipping on January 5!

If it flipped on January 15… we have seen solar max this January…

I think it helps to look at more than one line of the WSO polar field data

2022:10:27_21h:07m:13s	49N	30S	10Avg	20nhz filt:	41Nf	-11Sf	26Avgf
2022:11:06_21h:07m:13s	61N	26S	17Avg	20nhz filt:	41Nf	-9Sf	25Avgf
2022:11:16_21h:07m:13s	44N	1S	21Avg	20nhz filt:	41Nf	-7Sf	24Avgf
2022:11:26_21h:07m:13s	44N	-1S	23Avg	20nhz filt:	41Nf	-5Sf	23Avgf
2022:12:06_21h:07m:13s	15N	-30S	22Avg	20nhz filt:	41Nf	-3Sf	22Avgf
2022:12:16_21h:07m:13s	23N	4S	9Avg	20nhz filt:	41Nf	-1Sf	21Avgf
2022:12:26_21h:07m:13s	17N	-2S	10Avg	20nhz filt:	41Nf	1Sf	20Avgf
2023:01:05_21h:07m:13s	2N	-10S	6Avg	20nhz filt:	41Nf	3Sf	19Avgf

Looking at the 10 day averaged figures (the left hand group) it is clear that the southern field initially reversed on 26th November, grew in strength by 6th December then reverted to original polarity on 16th December. It went negative again on 26th December, and has grown in strength at the latest reading on 5th January. Based on that data it seems entirely possible that it could revert again. However, looking at the 20nhz filtered data, it shows that the southern field reversed between 16th and 26th December. and has now grown slightly in a positive direction. Looking at that value for the whole record (back to 1976) it seems that there has been only one point of reversal for each cycle, so we might confidently claim that the southern field has reversed.

The story for the northern field is quite different. The 10day averaged data does show the northern field weakening, and it seems quite likely that it will show a reversal by the time of the next reading (15th January) due to be published on 4th February. Looking at the 20nHz filtered data the northern field remains solidly positive . We probably need to see a reversal in the 20nHz filtered data (both northern field and averaged value)before declaring that we have reached maximum.

[Sam Warfel]

Tbh solar max is only something we actually know for sure once it’s passed. Maybe in the future we will figure out how to tell when it’s happening, but that would be after testing the theory over at least one, probably more, Solar Cycles. And that testing means you have a theory, and you *wait* to see if it came true. Not announce “it worked” before you can tell if it did or not.

That’s for you, @Patrick P.A. Geryl.

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

If you look at cycle 12…. Highest monthly value after…. About the same as now…

Dont forget I calculated a weaker cycle then cycle 24.

(2) (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]

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

If you look at cycle 12…. Highest monthly value after…. About the same as now…

The SSN is all over the place, and hits a high point before the max. 

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

Dont forget I calculated a weaker cycle then cycle 24.

Which won't matter, since we won't know until after the cycle is over. 

 

Weaker/stronger is vague, and it's limited to 2 predictions. Out of spite, I will predict it will be stronger than 24.

 

If I am correct; has nothing to do with my knowledge, I'm just picking the other option in a binary abstract prediction. 

 

Please describe the details of a weaker cycle please. Less Sunspots? Less flares? Less CMEs? Weaker in what manner?

 

How many times has the flip been at the same time as the max?

Edited January 27, 2023 by Archmonoth

[Jesterface23]

From what I read, his prediction is a 365 day smoothed sfu value of 132+-11% around the end of 2023. Not much of a strait forward prediction for a smoothed international sunspot number in there.

[MissNeona]

Are you taking into consideration the earthcore pause and directional shift er nah?

Has it been mentioned yet? I feel like it's notable and might be heralding much more shifting of traditions.

Happy Galactic New Year/Year of the Cat/Bunny for those who observe~

[Philalethes]

1 hour ago, MissNeona said:

Are you taking into consideration the earthcore pause and directional shift er nah?

1. Earth's core has not "paused", and certainly not had any "directional shift"; there is some data to suggest that it has stopped rotating faster than mantle (superrotating), and is now rotating slower than the mantle (subrotating), but that's very different. It's also not even certain, but still rather conjectural at this point as far as I'm aware.
2. That has little to nothing to do with Sol's magnetic field, let alone the specific topic of this thread. If you'd like to discuss it, I'd suggest spending some time to find possible connections between this and geomagnetic activity, preferably with some basis in sound scientific research, and to open its own topic for that in the "Geomagnetic activity" subforum.

Edited January 27, 2023 by Philalethes Bythos

[MissNeona]

Op 27/1/2023 om 21:19, Philalethes Bythos zei:

1. Earth's core has not "paused", and certainly not had any "directional shift"; there is some data to suggest that it has stopped rotating faster than mantle (superrotating), and is now rotating slower than the mantle (subrotating), but that's very different. It's also not even certain, but still rather conjectural at this point as far as I'm aware.
2. That has little to nothing to do with Sol's magnetic field, let alone the specific topic of this thread. If you'd like to discuss it, I'd suggest spending some time to find possible connections between this and geomagnetic activity, preferably with some basis in sound scientific research, and to open its own topic for that in the "Geomagnetic activity" subforum.

This paper says differently... granted, 2009, but if it's on 35 or 70 year cycles it could help with prediction models 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-022-01112-z

Also, likely changing directions is a new spin.

Where do you get your data from to back up your claims?

You don't think there's obvious and distinct correlation between the two? 

I can see it pretty blatantly and their interplay means there will always be some tug and pull.

Not to mention, if our earth core is sols binary star.

Or, there's at least 5 different theories that would mean they echo, mirror or produce duelling magnetic charges off one another.

 

[Philalethes]

Op 27/1/2023 om 21:42, MissNeona zei:

This paper says differently... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-022-01112-z

No, it doesn't. It says exactly what I just said: it indicates that inner-core rotation has paused. That means a pause in the superrotation of the core, i.e. the rotation of the core relative to the mantle. Imagine that you're driving a car going faster than another car, so that you seem to be moving forward relative to them; then imagine that you slow down, so that you seem to be moving backward relative to them. That's what's happening here. You'd still be moving forward, just no longer faster relative to another moving car (in this case that other car is the surrounding mantle), and both of you would still be driving in the same direction.

Op 27/1/2023 om 21:42, MissNeona zei:

You don't think there's obvious and distinct correlation between the two? 

This thread is about the flipping of Sol's magnetic field, not that of Earth (which shows no sign of flipping anytime soon at all in any case). Entirely different topic. And if your claim is that Sol's flipping field is somehow causing the cessation of superrotation in the core, then you'd have to explain why this hasn't been regularly observed every 11 years as Sol's field flips back and forth. And in that case, that would still be a totally different topic, and you should find at least some decent scientific data to support the claim before even opening up a separate topic for it.

[MissNeona]

Op 27/1/2023 om 22:01, Philalethes Bythos zei:

No, it doesn't. It says exactly what I just said: it indicates that inner-core rotation has paused. That means a pause in the superrotation of the core, i.e. the rotation of the core relative to the mantle. Imagine that you're driving a car going faster than another car, so that you seem to be moving forward relative to them; then imagine that you slow down, so that you seem to be moving backward relative to them. That's what's happening here. You'd still be moving forward, just no longer faster relative to another moving car (in this case that other car is the surrounding mantle), and both of you would still be driving in the same direction.

This thread is about the flipping of Sol's magnetic field, not that of Earth (which shows no sign of flipping anytime soon at all in any case). Entirely different topic. And if your claim is that Sol's flipping field is somehow causing the cessation of superrotation in the core, then you'd have to explain why this hasn't been regularly observed every 11 years as Sol's field flips back and forth. And in that case, that would still be a totally different topic, and you should find at least some decent scientific data to support the claim before even opening up a separate topic for it.

Alright, it's clear now that you are not interested in scientific matters. My bad for actually trying to address you seriously.

Really only happens when someone not only clutters up threads with totally off-topic spam, but unapologetically keeps pushing it instead of addressing it in a scientific manner. This might sound harsh, but if what you've posted so far is the level of discussion you plan to maintain, then I for one will gladly say that I personally would strongly prefer not seeing it at all. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind going a little bit off-topic for some light-hearted banter, some speculation, or joking around, but to start insisting on discussing things with little to no relation to the topic despite clearly misunderstanding, misinterpreting, and saying wildly inaccurate nonsense (like suggesting that "Earth's core is Sol's binary star"), is just an eyesore.

I was under the impression that many stars are created and quantumly linked/entanged with another... triads have also been observed 

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-evidence-stars-born-pairs.html

Also, I thought the earth poles were/are shifting

Again, I took note of your opinion

https://www.science.org/content/article/time-new-compass-earth-s-magnetic-field-may-be-slowly-flipping

[Philalethes]

 

Op 27/1/2023 om 22:13, MissNeona zei:

I was under the impression that many stars are created and quantumly linked/entanged with another... triads have also been observed 

Nothing I said contradicted the existence of binary or trinary star systems. However, that has nothing to do with quantum entanglement (and certainly nothing to do with the topic, nor the incredibly nonsensical suggestion that Earth's core is a star, Sol's binary companion at that).

Op 27/1/2023 om 22:13, MissNeona zei:

Also, I thought the earth poles were/are shifting

The magnetic poles moving around a bit is nothing new. There's no evidence to suggest there will be a flip anytime soon, which is the only statement I made. There has been observed weakening of the field for a while, but it's still stronger than it has been for most of the last ~12,000 years, as pointed out in that article. It's an easy mistake to make without looking into it, and I had this pointed out to me in the past too, so I had to update my view to reflect the actual data.

[Archmonoth]

Op 27/1/2023 om 19:42, MissNeona zei:

Are you taking into consideration the earthcore pause and directional shift er nah?

I am aware of this, and there is another thread on the "other" section of the forum topics. 

We are learning about a process, which has been happening for quite a while, not that there is a sudden change in the Earth's core. The information is new, not the phenomenon. 

Op 27/1/2023 om 21:42, MissNeona zei:

You don't think there's obvious and distinct correlation between the two? 

There might be, there are limits to information, but the unknown doesn't justify any specific narrative. 

Op 27/1/2023 om 21:42, MissNeona zei:

Not to mention, if our earth core is sols binary star.

If there was another massive body that would be Sol's binary partner it would be Jupiter, since the Barycenter of the Solar system is influenced and impact by Jupiter more than any other planet/mass. In fact, Jupiter and Saturn account for 80%+ of the total angular momentum of the Solar system, not Earth. 

Op 27/1/2023 om 22:13, MissNeona zei:

I was under the impression that many stars are created and quantumly linked/entanged with another... triads have also been observed 

Entanglement might be exactly why the Earth's core flips every 70 years. The Earth has been entangled with the Sun and planets for 4+ billion years. 

Op 27/1/2023 om 22:13, MissNeona zei:

Also, I thought the earth poles were/are shifting

The poles are moving, and Earth's core changing direction might affect the field, but whatever entanglement with the Sun exists, it has been a long and durable relationship. We are always learning more about how it works.

The Sun's fields flipping or moving also happens every 11 years (or so) and won't affect the barycenter or change the shared momentum which would change the internal core speed of the Earth. This is because the output of the Sun's energy doesn't reach to the inside core, since there are thousands of miles/Kilometers of barrier. However, the barycenter and the mass of the Sun might be part of the entangled Earth's core, but that is just speculation at this point. 

I think finding how systems interconnect and twist around each other is a good direction to pursue, but sometimes systems are distant or separate enough that there is zero effect, and that is part of the learning process. 

[Philalethes]

20 hours ago, Archmonoth said:

How many times has the flip been at the same time as the max?

This is a great question, it'd be interesting to compare the timings of more previous flips with the timings of the maxima. I'm not sure how far back reliable measurements of the polar fields go, though, and I would suspect that reconstructions might not be accurate enough for that purpose. If anyone has any good data for that I'd be interested to see it.

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

3 uren geleden, Philalethes Bythos zei:

This is a great question, it'd be interesting to compare the timings of more previous flips with the timings of the maxima. I'm not sure how far back reliable measurements of the polar fields go, though, and I would suspect that reconstructions might not be accurate enough for that purpose. If anyone has any good data for that I'd be interested to see it.

Look… If you would have looked at my paper… then you would have seen that it happened in 1979/09…. Right at the reversal! We have beaten NASA for the low… will we do it for the high also?

(PDF) Polar Field Strength = 10.7 cm Solar Radio Flux?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348686960_Polar_Field_Strength_107_cm_Solar_Radio_Flux

[Philalethes]

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

Look… If you would have looked at my paper… then you would have seen that it happened in 1979/09…. Right at the reversal! We have beaten NASA for the low… will we do it for the high also?

(PDF) Polar Field Strength = 10.7 cm Solar Radio Flux?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348686960_Polar_Field_Strength_107_cm_Solar_Radio_Flux

I did look at the papers you've posted. You apparently don't seem to be reading what we are posting very carefully, on the other hand. We already knew it happened in 1979, and that much is readily visible from the graphic that Capricopia posted on the previous page too. What we were talking about now was whether or not that is the norm or not, because while it was true for SC21, it does not appear to be true for SC22, SC23, or SC24, and thus from that limited data it would seem unreasonable to expect it to be the case for SC25 with any degree of certainty. That's why the question was raised about how many previous cycles it's true for, and the timings of fields flips vs. maxima for previous cycles in general. You can't simply cherry-pick a single cycle and say, "see", when it's not true for the other ones. At the very least you need an explanation for why it doesn't happen for the other ones, and why we should expect it to be the case now.

Edited January 28, 2023 by Philalethes Bythos

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

59 minuten geleden, Philalethes Bythos zei:

I did look at the papers you've posted. You apparently don't seem to be reading what we are posting very carefully, on the other hand. We already knew it happened in 1979, and that much is readily visible from the graphic that Capricopia posted on the previous page too. What we were talking about now was whether or not that is the norm or not, because while it was true for SC21, it does not appear to be true for SC22, SC23, or SC24, and thus from that limited data it would seem unreasonable to expect it to be the case for SC25 with any degree of certainty. That's why the question was raised about how many previous cycles it's true for, and the timings of fields flips vs. maxima for previous cycles in general. You can't simply cherry-pick a single cycle and say, "see", when it's not true for the other ones. At the very least you need an explanation for why it doesn't happen for the other ones, and why we should expect it to be the case now.

Mmmm… sorry read my paper again and look at the polar field data… sc22 had it highest peak even BEFORE the second field reversed!

[Jesterface23]

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

Mmmm… sorry read my paper again and look at the polar field data… sc22 had it highest peak even BEFORE the second field reversed!

I miss-read things too sometimes.

[Philalethes]

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

Mmmm… sorry read my paper again and look at the polar field data… sc22 had it highest peak even BEFORE the second field reversed!

Again, you should read my posts. I literally pointed out exactly that previously. Again, look at the graph Capricopia posted, which is the same data you're relying on:

Here we see that yes, SC22 had its maximum before the fields flipped, like you just said and as I pointed out previously. We also see that SC21 had its maximum at roughly the same time as the fields flipped, as you also noted.

However, look at SC23; here we see maximum occur 2 years after the fields flipped. What is your explanation for this? We asked you this previously, but you didn't answer. Also, look at SC24; here we see maximum occur almost 1 year after the southern field flipped, and well over 1 year after the average reversal time.

So, how do you explain this? Who is to say this hasn't been the case for previous cycles? If maximum can occur 2 years after the fields flip, what makes you so sure that won't be the case for SC25? 

Edited January 28, 2023 by Philalethes Bythos

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

Sc 23 max is 8 months after the northern flipped🤩

[Philalethes]

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

Sc 23 max is 8 months after the northern flipped🤩

What date are you using for that? That's not what the graphic shows. Are you talking about since the last time the northern field had the opposite value? Because if so, that was October 2000, and the maximum was in November 2001, so even in that case that's still 1 year and 1 month.

So again: Why are we at maximum right now? Why can't maximum be 1 year from now?

Could you please give a clear answer to those questions? You seem to be avoiding them.

Edited January 28, 2023 by Philalethes Bythos

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

1 uur geleden, Philalethes Bythos zei:

What date are you using for that? That's not what the graphic shows. Are you talking about since the last time the northern field had the opposite value? Because if so, that was October 2000, and the maximum was in November 2001, so even in that case that's still 1 year and 1 month.

So again: Why are we at maximum right now? Why can't maximum be 1 year from now?

Could you please give a clear answer to those questions? You seem to be avoiding them.

The highest SSN MONTH was 2000/07. Or am I wrong? 144 SSN

not talking about smoothed ssn

[Philalethes]

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

The highest SSN MONTH was 2000/07. Or am I wrong? 144 SSN

not talking about smoothed ssn

Why would you not smooth it? That doesn't sound like a great idea to me at all, because doing that would totally ignore the second peak of the cycle in 2001/09. The first peak in 2000/07 was an SSN of 244 (not 144, I assume that's just a typing mistake), and the second peak over a year later in 2001/09 was an SSN of 238. You see what I mean? Clearly those are two peaks, and you can see this by looking at a graph of the progression too:

There I've highlighted the peaks in the red boxes. You can also make out visibly that the activity levels on average seem slightly higher during the second peak, which is exactly why the peak is considered to be there when you do the smoothing. Just taking the first as the maximum here would be a disservice to the actual data.

From looking at this the two peaks seem to be of similar size, so it would perhaps be more reasonable to consider the statistical maximum between the two time-wise, which would be 2001/02; even by that metric that's still significantly longer than a year since the fields flipped.

Also, disregarding that for a moment (which you can feel free to address), let's just go by your own assumptions for the sake of argument; that's still 8 months according to you, so why can't maximum be 8 months from now according to you?

[Jesterface23]

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

The highest SSN MONTH was 2000/07. Or am I wrong? 144 SSN

not talking about smoothed ssn

The 10.7cm Radio Flux maximum, smoothed and not smoothed, was during the 2nd peak of solar cycle 23. The sfu seeming to be important in your documents.

[3gMike]

19 minutes ago, Jesterface23 said:

The 10.7cm Radio Flux maximum, smoothed and not smoothed, was during the 2nd peak of solar cycle 23. The sfu seeming to be important in your documents.

I think you have arrived at the same conclusion as me. Patrick seems to change from one source of data to another depending on which better suits his current claim, but whichever source is used I can see no justification for the claim that we are already at maximum.

Jan Alvestad, who is listed as co-author in Patrick's referenced document, has posted this on his website

"The strength of the polar fields at their peak during cycle 24 indicated that solar cycle 25 could reach a magnitude somewhere between those of cycles 23 and 24. The southern polar field decayed quickly during the last months of 2022 and reversed in December 2022. Solar max normally occurs 0.5-2 years after the first polar field reversal. We can expect solar max for cycle 25 sometime between June 2023 and December 2024."

https://solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html

[Philalethes]

1 hour ago, Jesterface23 said:

The 10.7cm Radio Flux maximum, smoothed and not smoothed, was during the 2nd peak of solar cycle 23. The sfu seeming to be important in your documents.

Good observation. Generally speaking I'd assume the spectral flux density to be a somewhat more accurate measure of Solar activity, since the SSN doesn't actually tell you about the strength or activity of the sunspots.