Patrick P.A. Geryl Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 (edited) We have seen a growing discrepancy between the ISN vs the 10.7 Solar flux. We haven’t seen that so early in cycle 24 and are wondering what is going on. Formula ISN x 0.635 + 64 = 10.7 Solar flux ADJUSTED The difference for January is -12.1 % The high resolution 1K gives only a small difference 1K x 0.5 + 64 = 10.7 Solar flux (adjusted) 2K x 0.326 + 64 = 10.7 Solar flux (adjusted) The high resolution sunspots can be found here STAR archive Click on month https://solen.info/solar/old_reports/ Point is that a primary estimate for February gives a -20% estimate for the ISN… We use the conversion values for the ISN and the high resolution 1K and 2K from our published article in Astrophysics and Space Science (PDF) A Formula for the Start of a New Sunspot Cycle https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342766380_A_Formula_for_the_Start_of_a_New_Sunspot_Cycle Anybody any idea why this is happening? Edited February 23, 2023 by Patrick P.A. Geryl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3gMike Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 13 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said: We have seen a growing discrepancy between the ISN vs the 10.7 Solar flux. We haven’t seen that so early in cycle 24 and are wondering what is going on. Formula ISN x 0.635 + 64 = 10.7 Solar flux ADJUSTED The difference for January is -12.1 % The high resolution 1K gives only a small difference 1K x 0.5 + 64 = 10.7 Solar flux (adjusted) 2K x 0.326 + 64 = 10.7 Solar flux (adjusted) The high resolution sunspots can be found here STAR archive Click on month https://solen.info/solar/old_reports/ Point is that a primary estimate for February gives a -20% estimate for the ISN… We use the conversion values for the ISN and the high resolution 1K and 2K from our published article in Astrophysics and Space Science (PDF) A Formula for the Start of a New Sunspot Cycle https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342766380_A_Formula_for_the_Start_of_a_New_Sunspot_Cycle Anybody any idea why this is happening? Hi Patrick, The link you have provided does not give access to the full text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick P.A. Geryl Posted February 24, 2023 Author Share Posted February 24, 2023 4 uren geleden, 3gMike zei: Hi Patrick, The link you have provided does not give access to the full text. I am not allowed to publish on ARXIV. You need to purchase it if you want the full article. Therefore I gave the formulas so you can do your own calculations. There is a lot more, but it is copyright protected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick P.A. Geryl Posted February 25, 2023 Author Share Posted February 25, 2023 Op 23/2/2023 om 21:47, 3gMike zei: Hi Patrick, The link you have provided does not give access to the full text. Hi Mike, I send you the pdf file. If any others interested, send me a mail. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick P.A. Geryl Posted March 1, 2023 Author Share Posted March 1, 2023 The discrepancy from our formula increased to - 21% in February! We havent seen this in previous cycles… Anybody any idea what is inducing this so early in the cycle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick P.A. Geryl Posted March 13, 2023 Author Share Posted March 13, 2023 (edited) We found a possible explanation for the discrepancy between the ISN and the 10.7 Solar flux. In our article we found that the high resolution SN are directly related to the 10.7 flux, with a small fault. The ISN doesn’t follow so closely. We see that the high resolution SN are closely following the 10.7 Solar flux in February while the ISN is off by 21.9 %. See also formulas and links above. So we propose the following: there are currently more smaller sunspots created not detectable by ISN. But we still don’t know why this is happening… Edited March 13, 2023 by Patrick P.A. Geryl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick P.A. Geryl Posted April 5, 2023 Author Share Posted April 5, 2023 (edited) The first five days of April show again a large discrepancy between the ISN and the Solar flux… On the other hand the high resolution sunspots in 1K and 2K show an almost perfect relation with the Solar flux. You can check these findings with the formulas and the links above. Conclusion: far more small sunspots are created, invisible for the ISN. This was also the case in February. March was better, but still 9 percent off… 10.7 flux ISN February 163.2 110.9 March 155.6 122.6 But why do we see so many small spots in high resolution? And nothing with the ISN? That remains unanswered… Edited April 5, 2023 by Patrick P.A. Geryl 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissNeona Posted April 5, 2023 Share Posted April 5, 2023 (edited) Amazing news! Invisible CMEs were an exciting part, and to hear this? My theories feel like they're gaining traction~ This next week might be really exciting, what about full moon interplay? Plus with Jupiter's close approach there could be dynamic energy pulling from that, potentially, like how excited the sun got with that comet. Edited April 5, 2023 by MissNeona 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Jesterface23 Posted April 5, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted April 5, 2023 6 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said: But why do we see so many small spots in high resolution? We have high resolution imagery now. 6 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said: And nothing with the ISN? That remains unanswered… High resolution imagery didn't exist before 2010. Past and future data for the ISN will want to be measured as similarly as possible. New counts can come with this new high resolution imagery, but the ISN won't change. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick P.A. Geryl Posted April 7, 2023 Author Share Posted April 7, 2023 We also found a formula to calculate the sunspot number from the 10.7 Solar flux. Flux-64 Result*1.575 Flux February 2023 = 163.2 SN should be 163.2-64= 99.2 99.2*1.575=156.2 But! The measured SN was only 110.9! A difference of 45.3 too low! The total difference since 2022/09 till 2023/03 amounts to a staggering 152.7 SN points! Or a difference from 21.8 per month! So I repeat my question: what is going on? Why the never before seen difference? Are we entering a new Maunder minimum? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Warfel Posted April 7, 2023 Share Posted April 7, 2023 1 hour ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said: We also found a formula to calculate the sunspot number from the 10.7 Solar flux. Flux-64 Result*1.575 Flux February 2023 = 163.2 SN should be 163.2-64= 99.2 99.2*1.575=156.2 But! The measured SN was only 110.9! A difference of 45.3 too low! The total difference since 2022/09 till 2023/03 amounts to a staggering 152.7 SN points! Or a difference from 21.8 per month! So I repeat my question: what is going on? Why the never before seen difference? Are we entering a new Maunder minimum? How can you say you "found a formula to calculate the sunspot number from the 10.7 solar flux", when it's basically always wrong? Doesn't sound like a very good formula to calculate anything. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesterface23 Posted April 7, 2023 Share Posted April 7, 2023 4 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said: So I repeat my question: what is going on? Why the never before seen difference? There's a first time for everything. With there being data from 6 prior complete solar cycles, maybe the chance for error is possibly higher. A graph of divided differences of all of the past data over different time spans would be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick P.A. Geryl Posted April 8, 2023 Author Share Posted April 8, 2023 9 uren geleden, Sam Warfel zei: How can you say you "found a formula to calculate the sunspot number from the 10.7 solar flux", when it's basically always wrong? Doesn't sound like a very good formula to calculate anything. The high resolution formulas give a nearly perfect match. Therefore this formula should also. It doesn’t. Why? There are a lot more sunspots in 1K and 2K! The 1K formula is 10.7 flux -64 = X Multiply with 2.0 you can find them here Solar Terrestrial Activity Report https://www.solen.info/solar/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philalethes Posted April 8, 2023 Share Posted April 8, 2023 Are you only using data back to 2003? I would hope not, but if so, why do you expect to find a pattern that will hold for the future? I believe I've explained to you what overfitting is previously. Even if a formula holds for two cycles, that's no guarantee that it's going to be a general formula that holds for all cycles at all, especially not when all you're doing is linear regression. It would be nice if you could tell us exactly which data you've been using to establish these formulae, so that we can at least go through the data ourselves. If it's only that data from Solen, then I don't see it going back before 2003, which is less than two cycles, not exactly a great sample size. Also, the data there doesn't seem to be available in any computer-readable format (without working to extract it from the HTML), so if you have the data in a more accessible format it'd be great if you could share that directly. Keep in mind that a lot of different variations when it comes to the sizes of sunspots have been found, both from cycle to cycle and within single cycles, and not all are well understood. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick P.A. Geryl Posted April 8, 2023 Author Share Posted April 8, 2023 (edited) 7 uren geleden, Philalethes Bythos zei: Are you only using data back to 2003? I would hope not, but if so, why do you expect to find a pattern that will hold for the future? I believe I've explained to you what overfitting is previously. Even if a formula holds for two cycles, that's no guarantee that it's going to be a general formula that holds for all cycles at all, especially not when all you're doing is linear regression. It would be nice if you could tell us exactly which data you've been using to establish these formulae, so that we can at least go through the data ourselves. If it's only that data from Solen, then I don't see it going back before 2003, which is less than two cycles, not exactly a great sample size. Also, the data there doesn't seem to be available in any computer-readable format (without working to extract it from the HTML), so if you have the data in a more accessible format it'd be great if you could share that directly. Keep in mind that a lot of different variations when it comes to the sizes of sunspots have been found, both from cycle to cycle and within single cycles, and not all are well understood. is this satisfying enough? It is the same like our peer reviewed article, but with 365 smoothing. Factors stay the same 🤩 (PDF) High Resolution Sunspot Smoothing (365d) Mimics the 10.7 cm Solar Flux https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351266770_High_Resolution_Sunspot_Smoothing_365d_Mimics_the_107_cm_Solar_Flux Furthermore you seem to miss the point. It is about the ISN! Not the high resolution! We use the factors from our peer reviewed article… see the start of the thread…. The high resolution SN are novel, but they seem to hold their formulas quite well. They give a quite interesting point to the discussion. I am preparing a note or letter for rapid publication. This is a quite large discrepancy. Edited April 8, 2023 by Patrick P.A. Geryl 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesterface23 Posted April 8, 2023 Share Posted April 8, 2023 3 hours ago, MissNeona said: Also, I noticed that the satellites have been going null almost daily, maybe the increased activity is somehow dampening the ability for accurate readings, like a past threshold? Acclimatized sensors cause it doesn't seem to make sense that with all the visual activity we are rarely hitting M-class. Earth blocks the GOES satellites view of the of the Sun once a day. ACE doesn't get data or gets errored data about once a day. The reason is float around somewhere in my head, but can't find it. It's not due to solar activity though. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick P.A. Geryl Posted April 17, 2023 Author Share Posted April 17, 2023 I did send a note to The Astrophysical Journal. Answer: if the conclusions of your Note - indicating a significant change in the Sun's behaviour - are correct, this would have wide implications for studies of Solar Physics. Then follows the rejection because they don’t peer review. So it is now at a peer reviewed journal as a letter. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick P.A. Geryl Posted April 27, 2023 Author Share Posted April 27, 2023 Because of the importance of the findings, the letter must be expanded with detailed high resolution proof. Meanwhile April will also be off with a wide margin…. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick P.A. Geryl Posted May 2, 2023 Author Share Posted May 2, 2023 (edited) SSN for October 2022 is 98,7 instead in should be 118! It looks like we will have the lowest cycle since the Dalton minimum… Edited May 2, 2023 by Patrick P.A. Geryl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcel de Bont Posted May 2, 2023 Share Posted May 2, 2023 4 uren geleden, Patrick P.A. Geryl zei: It looks like we will have the lowest cycle since the Dalton minimum… Why do you say that? We are likely still two years away from solar maximum. The SSN of this January (not smoothed) is almost as high as the highest non smoothed SSN month of SC24. What am I missing? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick P.A. Geryl Posted May 2, 2023 Author Share Posted May 2, 2023 (edited) Had to make my arguments more specific for peer review. Hope everybody understands the problem now. Please read and comment than again. Can’t publish my specific arguments here because copyright. Researchgate is like ARXIV. no problem with copyright. I don’t have the money for open access. (PDF) Why Are the Sunspots Disappearing? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370443495_Why_Are_the_Sunspots_Disappearing Edited May 2, 2023 by Patrick P.A. Geryl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcel de Bont Posted May 2, 2023 Share Posted May 2, 2023 Still don't get it. You didn't answer my question. We are two years away from solar maximum and the smoothed sunspot number is well on its way to match or even surpass the peak of SC24. Your claim that this will be the lowest cycle since the Dalton minimum or could signal a new Maunder Minimum makes zero sense to me? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick P.A. Geryl Posted May 2, 2023 Author Share Posted May 2, 2023 (edited) Op 2/5/2023 om 18:13, Marcel de Bont zei: Still don't get it. You didn't answer my question. We are two years away from solar maximum and the smoothed sunspot number is well on its way to match or even surpass the peak of SC24. Your claim that this will be the lowest cycle since the Dalton minimum or could signal a new Maunder Minimum makes zero sense to me? Who is saying that Solar max is two years away? Scott McIntosh says before year end. That is max 8 months away. I say Solar max … 13 month smoothed is probably April - June 2023. I have send an updated research article to solar Physics outlining my theory. It is calculated with the 10.7 solar flux. Gives a smaller cycle than cycle 24. I also gave on Researchgate 8 points that January 2023 is the max month from this cycle. We will know at the latest at the end of June… If the discrepancy grows… I am right… NASA was wrong with the transition from 24-25. They are far off for the high… as usual… Edited May 3, 2023 by Patrick P.A. Geryl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesterface23 Posted May 2, 2023 Share Posted May 2, 2023 @Patrick P.A. Geryl By chance are some of your data sources different, with one ending in 2022 and using a new source used in 2022-2023? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philalethes Posted May 2, 2023 Share Posted May 2, 2023 To me it doesn't look like the formula was a very good proxy to begin with. The values are all over the place from what it looks like to me, looks like someone has tried to force linear regression on a relationship which isn't necessarily linear at all, or which has more variance than you know due to the low sample size of just a few cycles; when you already have some errors as large as 10%, finding subsequent errors of 20% doesn't seem very surprising. As I've mentioned previously there is also some literature on both inter- and intracycle variance in relative sunspot sizes, such as e.g. this paper that reports how there were fewer small spots during the beginning of SC23, compensated by more such spots later in the cycle. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now