Philalethes Posted December 31, 2023 Share Posted December 31, 2023 24 minutes ago, Lawn Boy said: Am I wrong to be surprised that they are showing a 10 year decline? Y’all haven’t even mentioned it. It's not accounting for the next cycle at all, just this one, so sometime around 2031 we'll likely start to see an increase regardless of how it turns out. Also, if you look closely it's actually predicting a two-peaked cycle with a second peak in July of 2025, so it's not exactly a continuous decline being predicted either. And this is ultimately just a prediction; I'm not even sure what exactly they're basing the spacing of the two peaks on, since that's notoriously difficult (so far practically impossible from what I know) to accurately forecast. Personally I'm not even convinced that we've really hit a first peak at all yet, but that'll start to get clearer over the next months; could also end up being more of a plateau, like we saw for SC20. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamateur 1953 Posted December 31, 2023 Share Posted December 31, 2023 (edited) Well heck. I just looked at Jan Alvestads SC 25 candidate for solar max and hang on a bit, because it appears that he has moved it to June 27 2023. No kidding. Surprised me. Thanks @Philalethes for clearing that up. Honestly, I missed that fine point earlier! 32 minutes ago, Philalethes said: It's not accounting for the next cycle at all, just this one, so sometime around 2031 we'll likely start to see an increase regardless of how it turns out. Also, if you look closely it's actually predicting a two-peaked cycle with a second peak in July of 2025, so it's not exactly a continuous decline being predicted either. And this is ultimately just a prediction; I'm not even sure what exactly they're basing the spacing of the two peaks on, since that's notoriously difficult (so far practically impossible from what I know) to accurately forecast. Personally I'm not even convinced that we've really hit a first peak at all yet, but that'll start to get clearer over the next months; could also end up being more of a plateau, like we saw for SC20. Edited December 31, 2023 by hamateur 1953 Ooops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick P.A. Geryl Posted December 31, 2023 Author Share Posted December 31, 2023 I did mean : The peak is in June. But the down path is wrong… I expect a short cycle. I am quite convinced NASA picked up my prediction because I put it on their Twitter, now X page, and they must have noticed it here. They know I got the minimum right… Must have impressed them🤩😊😉 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesterface23 Posted December 31, 2023 Share Posted December 31, 2023 1 hour ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said: I am quite convinced NASA picked up my prediction because I put it on their Twitter, now X page, and they must have noticed it here. They know I got the minimum right… Must have impressed them🤩😊😉 Guessing that is internet sarcasm at work .............. Obviously we need to see how things play out over the next several months, but the potential for a next smoothed peak looks to begin possibly around November. Then another main peak can't be ruled out at this point around 2024/2025 for obvious reasons. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick P.A. Geryl Posted December 31, 2023 Author Share Posted December 31, 2023 1 uur terug, Jesterface23 zei: Guessing that is internet sarcasm at work .............. Obviously we need to see how things play out over the next several months, but the potential for a next smoothed peak looks to begin possibly around November. Then another main peak can't be ruled out at this point around 2024/2025 for obvious reasons. No sarcasm. 1. I wrote that I use the same indicator for the minimum as for the maximum. But I didn’t specify which SSN to be used. 2. So they must have figured it out, because it is 100 % reliable. Not 99.9 but 100%! 3. After the maximum the indicator reverses. That’s it… No discussion possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawn Boy Posted December 31, 2023 Share Posted December 31, 2023 (edited) Just damn Pat if #2 is true then why is their prediction wrong? Edited December 31, 2023 by Lawn Boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamateur 1953 Posted December 31, 2023 Share Posted December 31, 2023 (edited) Good luck with that @Lawn Boy I tried for months last year as have all of us. You may indeed be the first to receive an intelligent well-thought out reply of any type from him. Anyway, happy new year and welcome to the forum! Mike. 1 hour ago, Lawn Boy said: Just damn Pat if #2 is true then why is their prediction wrong? Edited December 31, 2023 by hamateur 1953 Alliteration 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick P.A. Geryl Posted December 31, 2023 Author Share Posted December 31, 2023 1 uur geleden, Lawn Boy zei: Just damn Pat if #2 is true then why is their prediction wrong? It will go faster down than they predict😊 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawn Boy Posted December 31, 2023 Share Posted December 31, 2023 Patrick, I’m rooting for you in as much as I’m rooting for the truth. I would just like to know what that is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesterface23 Posted December 31, 2023 Share Posted December 31, 2023 4 minutes ago, Lawn Boy said: Patrick, I’m rooting for you in as much as I’m rooting for the truth. I would just like to know what that is. All we can do is wait in see what the Sun gives us over the next few years. That's the truth. The Solar Cycle Prediction Panel's forecast will always be changing based on what the monthly smoothed sunspot numbers end up being. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamateur 1953 Posted December 31, 2023 Share Posted December 31, 2023 (edited) Amen Edited December 31, 2023 by hamateur 1953 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawn Boy Posted December 31, 2023 Share Posted December 31, 2023 I got to tell you Jester it’s hard to find the truth around here (solar science). One goes doesn’t go with another. Have you ever tried to compare TSI from a couple of decades apart. On December 30 Belgium‘s number was 68 and Boulder’s number was 48 and then Belgium has this article on their website. https://www.sidc.be/SILSO/faq4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamateur 1953 Posted December 31, 2023 Share Posted December 31, 2023 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Jesterface23 said: All we can do is wait in see what the Sun gives us over the next few years. That's the truth. The Solar Cycle Prediction Panel's forecast will always be changing based on what the monthly smoothed sunspot numbers end up being. Amen pleadingly Edited December 31, 2023 by hamateur 1953 Hoping Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philalethes Posted December 31, 2023 Share Posted December 31, 2023 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Lawn Boy said: I got to tell you Jester it’s hard to find the truth around here (solar science). One goes doesn’t go with another. Have you ever tried to compare TSI from a couple of decades apart. On December 30 Belgium‘s number was 68 and Boulder’s number was 48 and then Belgium has this article on their website. https://www.sidc.be/SILSO/faq4 It's not that hard to find truth, at least not general principles. First thing to note is that predictions are not observed facts; otherwise they wouldn't be predictions. That one prediction isn't the same as another prediction isn't strange at all, but almost to be expected given that prediction of Solar activity is still in its infancy as a science, and that it also involves various chaotic elements that might remain unpredictable for decades and centuries to come. Also, not sure why you're talking about TSI and then link to an article about sunspot measurements (and also apparently talking about sunspot numbers). TSI stands for "total Solar irradiance", and is something entirely different from sunspot numbers; comparing it a couple decades apart should give virtually zero difference, since it varies less than 0.1% (roughly a single watt per square meter) from minima to maxima. As for why sunspot numbers are different from observatory to observatory, again which is something entirely different, that's pretty much exactly what the article you linked to explains. Different resolutions, different observational conditions, differences in personal opinion about whether some cluster constitutes this or that amount of spots, and so on. Edited December 31, 2023 by Philalethes unit 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawn Boy Posted December 31, 2023 Share Posted December 31, 2023 (edited) Thanks for your reply Phil. I obviously wasn’t very clear in my comment. I was referring to three different measurements GOES TSI and SN. 1 inch is 1 inch wherever you look but that is not true with those measurements. The article was referring to the difference between Belgium number 68 and the Boulder number 48. Belgium is higher in this case. As it more often is. Which doesn’t line up with article. Why is the International Sunspot Number always lower than simultaneous Wolf numbers published by other sources ? (The 0.6 factor) and this is what I was talking about in reference to TSI Edited December 31, 2023 by Lawn Boy Additional info Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philalethes Posted December 31, 2023 Share Posted December 31, 2023 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Lawn Boy said: 1 inch is 1 inch wherever you look but that is not true with those measurements. Well, just as an aside, it's a categorical mistake to compare units with measurements; units are what measurements are made in, and are a matter of definition (so an inch being an inch is trivially true by definition), while measurements are actual empirical observations that can vary depending on a lot of different factors (but of course, one of the goals of a good and accurate scientific theory is to arrive at ways to be able to predictably measure the same results independently). 43 minutes ago, Lawn Boy said: The article was referring to the difference between Belgium number 68 and the Boulder number 48. Belgium is higher in this case. As it more often is. Which doesn’t line up with article. Alright, I think I see what you're asking now, you're wondering why the Boulder number is lower rather than higher, correct? Until now I thought you were still asking why there was a difference between the two at all (especially given the above). In that case that's a good question, as the article does indeed imply that the ISN should be lower. Where are you getting the Boulder number from? I don't really check any other sources than the ISN for sunspot number myself, so don't really know where the individual observatory measurements are accessed; I tried searching for an up-to-date Boulder sunspot number, but was unable to find any good results (maybe I'm just bad at looking). I also don't know how up-to-date all of SILSO's information is either. Maybe someone else knows more about it. Edited December 31, 2023 by Philalethes correction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawn Boy Posted December 31, 2023 Share Posted December 31, 2023 This is where I got the SN numbers. https://www.sidc.be/SILSO/DATA/EISN/EISN_current.txt https://www.solarham.net/regions.htm 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philalethes Posted December 31, 2023 Share Posted December 31, 2023 16 minutes ago, Lawn Boy said: This is where I got the SN numbers. https://www.sidc.be/SILSO/DATA/EISN/EISN_current.txt https://www.solarham.net/regions.htm I see; I'm assuming the SESC number is what NOAA measures and that that is the connection to Boulder. Well, I agree that that's interesting, and indeed a deviance from what the article is claiming. I don't really know why that is, as I've really only paid attention to the ISN itself (except other counts more peripherally, like the high-resolution counts from Solen). Maybe the information is outdated, or maybe the "always" in the title is meant to reflect a commonly asked question despite not actually always being the case due to differences in measurement between the observatories. Not really sure at all. Hopefully someone else might know what the reason for that discrepancy is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissNeona Posted December 31, 2023 Share Posted December 31, 2023 (edited) Newbie had sent me this info before, I found it useful: " There has been a decrease in the sensitivity of the instrument as the abstract of the article points out but no overall degradation of signal. They do calibrate the LASCO C2 coronograph to accommodate these changes. “We present an update to the photometric calibration of the LASCO-C2 coronagraph onboard the SOHO spacecraft. We obtained the new calibration using data from the beginning of the mission in 1996 until 2013. We re-examined the LASCO-C2 photometric calibration by comparing the past three calibrations and the present calibration with the goal of validating an in-flight calibration. We find a photometric calibration factor (PCF) that is very similar to the factor recently published in Gardès, Lamy, and Llebaria (Solar Phys. 283, 667, 2013), which calculated a calibration between 1996 and 2009. The average of our PCF between 1999 and 2009 is the same, within our margin of error, as the average given by Gardès, Lamy, and Llebaria (Solar Phys. 283, 667, 2013) during the same time period. However, we find a different evolution of the calibration over the lifetime of the LASCO-C2 instrument compared with past results. We find that the sensitivity of the instrument is decreasing by a constant 0.20 [±0.03] % per year. We also find no significant difference in the signal degradation before and after the SOHO interruption. We discuss the effects of this new PCF on the calibrated data set and the potential impact on scientific results derived from the previous calibration”. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4479163/ The quality of LASCO C2 images can be affected by various factors, including over-processing. Over-processing occurs when adjustments or enhancements applied to the images may lead to artefacts or distortions. While the aim is to enhance visibility of features, excessive processing can introduce errors." It helped me comprehend a few things, I think of it as a camera lens that might need regular white balances to get accurate readings. Also, in 1990 a reason for needed changes was because of never before seen solar frequency changes, and I saw speculation that it could happen again. Posted because it would seem like each instrument might have different calibrations, recalibrations, sensitivity and exposure settings leading to differentiation between devices, locations and settings. Edited December 31, 2023 by MissNeona Clarify why it is relevant 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick P.A. Geryl Posted January 2 Author Share Posted January 2 My prediction for solar cycle 25 - still in peer review- is 158.79 Sfu with 365-day smoothing. The end result is 158.71 sfu on June 27, 2023. This is an unbelievable tiny 0.05% difference. The prediction for the peak was between May and July 2023. We are smack in the middle🤩😉😊 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick P.A. Geryl Posted January 2 Author Share Posted January 2 More details why we are so sure June 2023 is the maximum here: (PDF) Calculating the Strength of Solar Cycle 25 Using 365-day Smoothing https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377064732_Calculating_the_Strength_of_Solar_Cycle_25_Using_365-day_Smoothing 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawn Boy Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 It looks like you’ve got something there, Patrick. I’m glad you put it out there for people to look over. I’m certainly not the one to ask questions about it. But I’m sure you will be getting some. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick P.A. Geryl Posted January 3 Author Share Posted January 3 2 uren geleden, Lawn Boy zei: It looks like you’ve got something there, Patrick. I’m glad you put it out there for people to look over. I’m certainly not the one to ask questions about it. But I’m sure you will be getting some. Good luck. Jan Alvestad placed a link to it on his website😉😊 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesterface23 Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 Keep in mind Jan has it as a solar max candidate. We have a long ways to go before determining the true solar maximum. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawn Boy Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 Patrick, I look at Solen.info all the time can you point to the link that you’re talking about. 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