New NASA prediction

[Newbie]

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

We have an indicator that gives a 100 percent certainty that the maximum falls between May and July 2023. It will become clear in the next 3 weeks when the solar flux and ISN stay down. Still in review. It is related to the high resolution sunspots. Gives even the day of the maximum. See the site of Jan Alvestad for the previous maximum. 

Dear Patrick,

Am I missing something here? 
Still in review but becoming clearer in the next few weeks with 100% certainty? I’m sorry but to me it seems rather cryptic. 
also “who are we”?

 I would be interested to know!

N.

[Jesterface23]

As long as you know you can not say solar maximum has officially arrived untill several more years have passed, go for it.

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

1 uur geleden, Newbie zei:

Dear Patrick,

Am I missing something here? 
Still in review but becoming clearer in the next few weeks with 100% certainty? I’m sorry but to me it seems rather cryptic. 
also “who are we”?

 I would be interested to know!

N.

The theory implies that the solar flux will stay low the next 3 weeks😊

 

1 uur terug, Jesterface23 zei:

As long as you know you can not say solar maximum has officially arrived untill several more years have passed, go for it.

Yes you can know that with the polar fields. Around February a lot of astronomers will start to notice.

[tniickck]

if we passed the maximum, this is gonna be the worst cycle since cosmic era start yet

[3gMike]

3 hours ago, hamateur 1953 said:

Well you are only off by about a year there.  May/aug  2024 Is the most likely. Anyway, I was going to ask @3gMike what  the southern polar field is doing presently.  I believe it may have crossed zero again, it was close a few weeks ago, in any event. 
 

Filtered Southern field is still sitting slightly negative, but is heading in a positive direction. Filtered Northern field which was heading in a negative direction, and had crossed zero in April, reversed direction in August and recently crossed zero (heading back positive). Unfiltered fields, both North and South, crossed zero heading in a positive direction around mid-June. Currently both heading negative again.

[hamateur 1953]

Well, I’m fairly sure @Newbiedidn’t really expect Patrick to answer the question posed by her and also by myself two years ago: Exactly who is Patrick referring to when using the associative term “ We” ??  Jan Alvestad??  Jan has never posted on this forum to my knowledge. Anyway, thanks @3gMike for the field updates.   Patrick, the solar flux typically rises and falls during almost all solar cycles.  Even during SC 19 on its rise to break all records, varied from over 200 sfu down under 100 several times. This is one reason smoothed 12 or 13 month values are calculated to better represent overall cycle strength. Jan made a public statement that last July peak that there was only a small possibility that it would represent SC 25 peak.   It still has a ways to go irrespective of any months average or mean.  That’s just how it works.  

[Cronus]

Unless you guys have a satellite at L2 any prediction you make regarding sunspot number is completely useless. Missing 45% of the suns visibility. I personally base everything regarding solar activity levels on the integral of the X-Ray emissions graph. sunspot number seems like a weak basis as they all act differently regardless of shape and size they are not guaranteed to do anything. Oh the things I could do if the put an Xray spectrometer at L2.

[marc-pdx]

On 10/26/2023 at 8:38 AM, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

You can circumvent it with 365-day smoothing, the polar fields and high resolution sunspots. Perfect fit with 13-month smoothing.

Fits even better than my prediction for the minimum.

Ummmmmmmm... I think scientific methodology calls specifically for not having a test result that you are trying to prove. For just this reason. Step by step you are liable to continue to make "adjustments" to the formula to fit the outcome you want. You can't do that.

[hamateur 1953]

Welcome back Marc!!  73. Mike/Hagrid. 

Edited November 11, 2023 by hamateur 1953

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

10 uren geleden, marc-pdx zei:

Ummmmmmmm... I think scientific methodology calls specifically for not having a test result that you are trying to prove. For just this reason. Step by step you are liable to continue to make "adjustments" to the formula to fit the outcome you want. You can't do that.

Look, I can’t explain everything in detail yet. The formula is so good it gave the maximum of Solar cycle 25 for a date in June. We knew this at the end of July. Now… use 365 day smoothing on the ISN to get a date in June…🤔😊

Edited November 12, 2023 by Patrick P.A. Geryl

[arjemma]

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

Look, I can’t explain everything in detail yet. The formula is so good it gave the maximum of Solar cycle 25 for a date in June. We knew this at the end of July. Now… use 365 day smoothing on the ISN to get a date in June…🤔😊

Well if you can’t explain the formula yet that says a lot… You should be able to give us the formula if you are so sure it’s correct and can be used on any solar cycle.

[hamateur 1953]

I may as well interject here that Patrick actually posted the topic “Solar Max Has Passed “prior to May I think. This was after Solar Radio Flux as posted by NRC had hit 234 in January I think it was.  I assumed he was joking and I  posted a mock eulogy I think.  He seems in a hurry to kill solar activity for reasons id not want to speculate on.  The sun has its own schedule thankfully and I am a patient man. 

Edited November 12, 2023 by hamateur 1953

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

49 minuten geleden, hamateur 1953 zei:

I may as well interject here that Patrick actually posted the topic “Solar Max Has Passed “prior to May I think. This was after Solar Radio Flux as posted by NRC had hit 234 in January I think it was.  I assumed he was joking and I  posted a mock eulogy I think.  He seems in a hurry to kill solar activity for reasons id not want to speculate on.  The sun has its own schedule thankfully and I am a patient man. 

That was before the peer review. Made a conversion error that was rectified. 

[Jesterface23]

Using the same data sources, how did it do with the past 4 or 5 cycles? A graph would be cool.

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

2 minuten geleden, Jesterface23 zei:

Using the same data sources, how did it do with the past 4 or 5 cycles? A graph would be cool.

1 year after the start the formula gives the maximum with a fault of 3 months for the last 6 cycles. This cycle was was also bingo.😊. 1 month fault. 

[Jesterface23]

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

1 year after the start the formula gives the maximum with a fault of 3 months for the last 6 cycles. This cycle was was also bingo.😊. 1 month fault. 

At this point those are just words being said, nothing to say it is something that exists. Then there is no way around the fact that we need to wait a few more years to confirm solar maximum. 

[3gMike]

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

Now… use 365 day smoothing on the ISN to get a date in June…

For obvious reasons that makes no sense until we have data for December, and beyond !

Even then, all we can say is that there was a peak in June. It does not confirm that we have seen the final maximum for the whole cycle.

I find it interesting that Jan Alvestad acknowledges on his Solen website that it is "unlikely to be the final max of the cycle, but there is a small probability that it is".

[Solar_Marcel]

@Patrick P.A. Geryl

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

Look, I can’t explain everything in detail yet. The formula is so good it gave the maximum of Solar cycle 25 for a date in June. We knew this at the end of July. Now… use 365 day smoothing on the ISN to get a date in June…🤔😊

 

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

1 year after the start the formula gives the maximum with a fault of 3 months for the last 6 cycles. This cycle was was also bingo.😊

Please explain that. If you cant its not a viable theory for me, because you should have arguments for/to explain how your theory works

Lg

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

1 uur geleden, Solar_Marcel zei:

@Patrick P.A. Geryl

 

Please explain that. If you cant its not a viable theory for me, because you should have arguments for/to explain how your theory works

Lg

Well… there is a problem here. I need 3,000 euro for open access. Will ask what can be published after publication.

[hamateur 1953]

On 11/10/2023 at 1:40 AM, tniickck said:

if we passed the maximum, this is gonna be the worst cycle since cosmic era start yet

Yes indeed!   Patrick has effectively killed this cycle dead again and using his theory we are approximately six months along the downslope toward doom.  Not buying it for a minute fortunately, and most of the conventional studies aren’t either.  Gotta give him credit for going out on a limb though.  Hahaha!!  Edit:  since Patrick assures us that he has a working model, it should be a relatively simple matter for him to publish here an extrapolation from our present sunspot numbers down to its final demise in six years or so. I’d never attempt such a bold prediction.  But this is a perfect opportunity for him to go on record.  How about it Patrick?  We can leave SFI off of the table for the present time.  We await your predictions.  While we wait, I was thinking about a remark that someone made a few months back, I think it was  @Philalethesthat when we began to diverge from the sc20 curve, it seemed most likely that we would wind up somewhere between SC 23 and SC 24.   This is looking more likely every day.  Naturally, we all would prefer it was a lot closer to SC 23!! 

Edited November 12, 2023 by hamateur 1953

[hamateur 1953]

On 11/10/2023 at 12:06 AM, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

The theory implies that the solar flux will stay low the next 3 weeks😊

Well looking at our sun, and assuming that the correlation between sunspots and solar flux is a part of your theory Patrick, it certainly seems that this is valid. At least short term.  You need not disclose any of your theory or associates when completing your prediction of SC 25 further evolution. A simple twelve year graph should suffice, with your most recent solar maximum indicated last summer. Then at the end of this cycle you can claim you successfully predicted not only the maximum but the full evolution.  Edit:  Sorry Patrick I don’t have 3,000 euros to spare, if I did, I would probably buy my cat Hagrid a mouse farm.  Mike/Hagrid 

Edited November 13, 2023 by hamateur 1953

[Orilander]

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

Well… there is a problem here. I need 3,000 euro for open access. Will ask what can be published after publication.

Hey Pat, I don't want to come off as rude or anything, but you are making yourself pretty suspicious whan you say things like this. Just saying that it's not painting you in the best light.

[Philalethes]

23 hours ago, hamateur 1953 said:

Yes indeed!   Patrick has effectively killed this cycle dead again and using his theory we are approximately six months along the downslope toward doom.  Not buying it for a minute fortunately, and most of the conventional studies aren’t either.  Gotta give him credit for going out on a limb though.  Hahaha!!  Edit:  since Patrick assures us that he has a working model, it should be a relatively simple matter for him to publish here an extrapolation from our present sunspot numbers down to its final demise in six years or so. I’d never attempt such a bold prediction.  But this is a perfect opportunity for him to go on record.  How about it Patrick?  We can leave SFI off of the table for the present time.  We await your predictions.  While we wait, I was thinking about a remark that someone made a few months back, I think it was  @Philalethesthat when we began to diverge from the sc20 curve, it seemed most likely that we would wind up somewhere between SC 23 and SC 24.   This is looking more likely every day.  Naturally, we all would prefer it was a lot closer to SC 23!! 

Somewhere between SC20 and SC23 I assume you mean, but yeah, that still seems most likely if you ask me. For that not to be the case the flux would have to take a massive downturn and practically flatline. Still max sometime 1/3 to halfway through next year methinks, but I wouldn't say there's 0 chance Patrick might be right; I don't think he should act like it before the fact no matter what happens though, because that's obviously not scientific thinking at all, and even if he were to get it right it wouldn't even necessarily be for the reasons he thinks. But ultimately I personally think his prediction will be wrong; as with all scientific hypotheses: time will tell.

2 hours ago, Orilander said:

Hey Pat, I don't want to come off as rude or anything, but you are making yourself pretty suspicious whan you say things like this. Just saying that it's not painting you in the best light.

There's nothing really suspicious about that at all, but there's some ongoing debate about the fees, as you can read e.g. here.

[hamateur 1953]

I agree completely, @Philalethesthere is a small chance he could be correct.  Jan Alvestad essentially posed the same last summer.   And why If Patrick is going to put himself up against most of the world with speculations, he most certainly should also have the chutzpah to finish the job. I don’t think SWL would ding him 3,000 euros for publishing his own predictions here.  NASA put their money down, he just may get lucky.  ( Of course we hope it plays out closer to sc 23 naturally).  Thanks for chiming in here.  Edit: Patrick also made reference to high resolution sunspots in his post. As most of us are presently aware Jan publishes those as 2K resolution along with the normal 1k resolution.   I’m not sure why he decided to bring those up, maybe he would like to elaborate.   Sunspots and solar flux rise and falls. From my perspective, our present situation is not only not unusual, but typical in any SC.   

Edited November 13, 2023 by hamateur 1953

[Menno van der Haven]

This November, the sunspot number is struggling to get above 100. Looking at current images of the sun, I see the large sunspot clusters turning away to behind the sun. Therefore, I think the sunspot number will get even lower in the coming week, perhaps to 20-40.

Of course, this is all just short-term work, but along with the weak second half of October, this will certainly cause the moving average to drop and cause a (temporary?) sunspot peak.