Jump to content

Solar Cycle 25 update Video by Dr Keith Strong


hamateur 1953
Go to solution Solved by Philalethes,

Recommended Posts

I was a little late in viewing this short video, but it is worthwhile nonetheless. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MttAxP4Au54   
 

If you can tolerate a few advertisements it is only 18 minutes long.  Dr Keith Strong and Dr Tamitha  Skov I both learned of through this site btw and they are both very credible IMO.  Hopefully you guys find their topics informative and useful.  Dr Skov not associated with this presentation 

Edited by hamateur 1953
Advertising headsup. Title changed to avoid confusion
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minuten geleden, hamateur 1953 zei:

Hopefully a few of you liked this guy.  At least he had some cool music along with his presentations.  Mike/🐈‍⬛

The music is ok , but the presentation is full of faults. Please delete link

Edited by Patrick P.A. Geryl
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Debunked.  Well he doesn’t use astrology, if that is his issue with him.  Nor have I ever seen him making wild unsubstantiated claims based on ancient civilizations.   I like the guy. 
I like Tamitha Skov as well at least she has good character and stamina and the class to not stray far afield from her knowledge base.  Just my opinion here. Plus I think she must work well with others.   Edit:  thanks to jester for replying to patrick, I would’ve been unaware of his post unless he had replied. 

Edited by hamateur 1953
Tnx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll have to agree with Patrick here for once, Keith's stubbornness in refusing to correct those values really detracts from his scientific credibility. I know he's been on a crusade against the idea of a grand Solar minimum (and I don't believe we're headed for that myself) for a while, but presenting the comparison as he is now, even as many people have pointed the mistake out to him, seems intellectually dishonest, especially given how it's a staple of his updates and presentations. I can only hope that he will acknowledge and correct it at some point.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

 

I was totally unaware of this but of course don’t ever see Patricks posts.  you are referring to the adjustments we have made regarding flare data I assume. If that is so, I consider it to be of little consequence really, only when comparisons are made.  I never expected this to become contentious but so be it.  If the moderators feel the same way go ahead and pull his post as misinformation with my apologies. Mike    Let me add this note, because this is bound to be confusing especially to others unfamiliar with datasets and when major changes are made.  There was a major change during my own life regarding smoothed sunspot numbers.   This can easily be seen on solen.  Cycle 19 had a smoothed sunspot number of 201 for many years. Using the older methods of calculating these.  Now it shows 285 smoothed.  Jan provides both charts, that anyone may freely use them provided credit is given him.
An entirely different situation but illustrates the inevitable confusion I hope.   

I know Patrick may be upset at seeing the May numbers overall.  Interestingly Jan acknowledged this as a possibility back as early as January 2024. If I remember correctly.  May was a great month.  Personally I had more fun than in fifty years, I hope others here did also.  And certainly we have a great year ahead for us all.  

Edited by hamateur 1953
Doubled post
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Solution
1 hour ago, hamateur 1953 said:

you are referring to the adjustments we have made regarding flare data I assume. If that is so, I consider it to be of little consequence really, only when comparisons are made.  I never expected this to become contentious but so be it.  If the moderators feel the same way go ahead and pull his post as misinformation with my apologies.

I think it's perfectly fine to leave it here, and Keith posts a lot of good data as well, I just think it's weird that he's refused to correct that particular point for so long. At least on YouTube he actually did respond, unlike on X (where he might not be paying attention to replies to his posts at all), so maybe he'll acknowledge and correct it after the comments Jesterface and I left him, as he at least seemed somewhat receptive to the notion that there might be a problem there.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for replying @Philalethes  Actually I was wondering whether he had made adjustments when comparing recent datasets myself tbh. 
I don’t tweet or follow any other social media, so most of you here are likely better informed than me.  Later dude. 👍Mike  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, hamateur 1953 said:

Thanks for replying @Philalethes  Actually I was wondering whether he had made adjustments when comparing recent datasets myself tbh. 
I don’t tweet or follow any other social media, so most of you here are likely better informed than me.  Later dude. 👍Mike  

Heh, yeah, when looking at just how extreme the difference is in his comparison between SC24 and SC25 it's natural to wonder about that indeed!

Here is a post he made about it on X at the end of May that triggered a few other Solar physicists to respond; among them were the corrected version of the plot that Eelco Doornbos posted:

GOzga-Ft-Xw-AAa-TIk.png

Here we still see clear indications of SC25 being stronger than SC24, although the number of X-flares didn't diverge until recently; a much more scientifically accurate comparison between the two.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need help again... SC25 Maximum. 

Why do we use the number of sunspots of May24 to prove that maximum is earliest in December23? In July we take the June data to prove that maximum is earliest in January24.

All the data is available everyday, isn't it? Why is there a delta of half a year to determine the latest possible maximum? 

I know there is something with 13 month smoothing but I don't understand it. 

@Philalethesyou're pretty good in explaining, may you can explain it to me in a hopefully easy way? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ingolf said:

know there is something with 13 month smoothing but I don't understand it. 

Current month average sunspot number + previous 6 months average sunspot number + future 6 month average sunspot number = 13 month average sunspot number. But it's the average number of all those combined months to get the 13 month smoothed number.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ingolf said:

I need help again... SC25 Maximum. 

Why do we use the number of sunspots of May24 to prove that maximum is earliest in December23? In July we take the June data to prove that maximum is earliest in January24.

All the data is available everyday, isn't it? Why is there a delta of half a year to determine the latest possible maximum? 

I know there is something with 13 month smoothing but I don't understand it. 

@Philalethesyou're pretty good in explaining, may you can explain it to me in a hopefully easy way? 

I can certainly try, and it shouldn't be too complicated.

In order to smooth the number for a given month you take an average of the months both before and after the month in question, so that you essentially capture information about the time surrounding that month as well; since each successive month will share most of those months with the previous one these averages will tend to be closer together, and thus the resulting curve will be "smoother", rather than the more "spiky" monthly number itself.

So it really comes down to that: to get that average, the smoothed number, you need to know the six monthly numbers after it, so you'll never get to know it until those six months have passed.

There's also a dedicated page on SILSO's site that explains it, which you might be interested in reading. As it says at the end:

Quote

NB: as the symmetrical smoothing process requires 6 monthly means around each base month, the smoothed values cannot be calculated for the first and last 6 months of the series. The last smoothed number thus always lags by 6 month behind the latest monthly mean sunspot number.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Philalethes said:

I can certainly try, and it shouldn't be too complicated.

In order to smooth the number for a given month you take an average of the months both before and after the month in question, so that you essentially capture information about the time surrounding that month as well; since each successive month will share most of those months with the previous one these averages will tend to be closer together, and thus the resulting curve will be "smoother", rather than the more "spiky" monthly number itself.

So it really comes down to that: to get that average, the smoothed number, you need to know the six monthly numbers after it, so you'll never get to know it until those six months have passed.

There's also a dedicated page on SILSO's site that explains it, which you might be interested in reading. As it says at the end:

Thanks @Jay-B and @Philalethes👍

So to say, we have a formula with the old 6 months, the current and the future 6 months. 13 months. 

The future months would be a prediction if I would calculate now, so I have to wait six month for the real numbers. 

It's really not difficult. Thanks a lot to both of you. I always thought that you just count the daily sunspots and make an average for the month, without any formula. Thanks again, now it is crystal clear. 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I have to wait six months for the real numbers." Yes, if you are conservative, but it is possible to PREDICT the smoothed values for the next six months and this is something SILSO does. The two different dashed red lines shown going six months into the future are two estimates, one based on extrapolation of this cycle's figures, and the other additionally using historic information about solar cycles in general. At present the two guesses agree that we may be at Solar Maxiumum.  There is no reason at all to discuss the credibility or motives of people who make predictions about natural phenomena. Just keep a note of their predictions and after a while it should be clear who are usually right and who are usually wrong and therefore who has the better understanding. For example, Dr. Valentina Zhkarova predicted that Solar Cycle 25 would have 80% of the intensity of Solar Cycle 24 and Solar Cycle 26 would be almost non-existent. This prediction was wrong about Solar Cycle 24, but not disastrously wrong. Personally I expect not to be around to get the final verdict in fifteen years' time! But there WILL be a verdict.

https://www.sidc.be/SILSO/dayssnplot

Sorry, should be, "...wrong about Solar Cycle 25..."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think i'm a bit off topic but i was having a look to old solar cycles stats on space weather during the '900, seems like there was much more activity during that century compared to solar cycles occurring lately. Is there a reason? Or am i reading them wrong? 

Screenshot_20240623-112800~2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Manuel said:

I think i'm a bit off topic but i was having a look to old solar cycles stats on space weather during the '900, seems like there was much more activity during that century compared to solar cycles occurring lately. Is there a reason? Or am i reading them wrong? 

Screenshot_20240623-112800~2.png

It's not wrong, by most of our measures there was indeed much stronger Solar activity for a lot of the 1900s than we've observed over this and the past cycle, with SC19 in particular marking a big peak in activity that stands out. We don't really know exactly what causes such long-term variation; some have proposed regular cycles with longer periods than the 11-year Solar cycle (like e.g. 80-100 year Gleissberg cycles, 200-240 year de Vries cycles, and/or 2200-2600 year Hallstatt cycles), but the evidence isn't entirely clear on this as most such long-term activity has to be inferred from less direct proxies like isotope records, whereas others would say that it's just natural fluctuations in a relatively chaotic dynamo (and there are probably a variety of more exotic hypotheses as well).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Manuel said:

I think i'm a bit off topic but i was having a look to old solar cycles stats on space weather during the '900, seems like there was much more activity during that century compared to solar cycles occurring lately. Is there a reason? Or am i reading them wrong? 

Screenshot_20240623-112800~2.png

I made a Gleissberg thread a week ago here in the "other" section. I thought it would be nice to talk about exactly what you are writing there. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • hamateur 1953 changed the title to Solar Cycle 25 update Video by Dr Keith Strong

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you also agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.