Jump to content
Will it snow? 7 day forecast Weather Radar Will it be cold?
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?

Minus 10

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    277

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Minus 10

    Solar and Aurora Activity Chat

    in Space, Science & nature

    Posted · Edited by Minus 10
    typo

    Reversed Polarity Sunspots Appear on the Sun

    December 25, 2019 / Dr.Tony Phillips

    Dec. 24, 2019: Solar Cycle 25 really is coming. Today, for the first time, there are two new-cycle sunspots on the solar disk–one in each hemisphere. This map of solar magnetic fields from NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory shows their location:

    We know these sunspots belong to the next solar cycle because of their magnetic polarity. Simply put, they are backwards. According to Hale’s Law, sunspot polarities flip-flop from one solar cycle to the next. During old Solar Cycle 24, we grew accustomed to sunspots in the sun’s southern hemisphere having a -/+ pattern. However, look at today’s southern sunspot:

    It is the opposite: +/-. This identifies it as a member of new Solar Cycle 25.

    Likewise, today’s northern sunspot has a reversed polarity compared to northern spots from old Solar Cycle 24. It, too, therefore, belongs to Solar Cycle 25.

    The sun is currently in Solar Minimum–the nadir of the 11-year sunspot cycle. It’s a deep Minimum, century-class according to sunspot counts. The scarcity of sunspots has been so remarkable that it has prompted discussion of a possible “extended Minimum” akin to the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century when sunspots were absent for decades. Such an event could have implications for terrestrial climate.

    Today’s new-cycle sunspots (along with isolated new-cycle spots earlier this year) suggest that the solar cycle is, in fact, unfolding normally. A new Maunder Minimum does not appear to be in the offing. Forecasters expect Solar Cycle 25 to slowly gain strength in the years ahead and reach a peak in July 2025.

    This is copied from space weather site:

    happy boxing day/st stephens day here in Ireland to everyone.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    • Like 5

    Solar and Aurora Activity Chat

    in Space, Science & nature

    Posted

    1 minute ago, ciel said:

    As a non-scientist, but with some basic scientific knowledge and interested in this topic, I do require to scrutinise evidence supporting any particular theory before concluding on the merits. Therefore, there is a need to provide evidence. To state that to ‘put up reams of evidence but all too time consuming’ is lazy and somehow unconvincing.

    Do your own research

    • Like 1

    Solar and Aurora Activity Chat

    in Space, Science & nature

    Posted · Edited by Minus 10
    typo

     

    Hypothetical Scenario:

     

    If I tell a person to jump of a cliff and tell them im certain they wont hit the bottom because there is no such thing as gravity, would they do it? I think not. Why? because the person knows that they would hit the bottom, does the person understand gravity? no unless they have studied the science of gravity. Have I used science in what  I told the person? yes but in an inverted devious way.

    Again you are trying to impose your educated beliefs on my beliefs by telling me that I must write my beliefs in a "certain" way.

    As regards to showing evidence, I could put up reams of evidence but all too time consuming.

    Why do I need to show evidence? are people that unbelieving in these times?

    Ive known you on this forum fpr many years, and not once have I ever scolded you for what you type but yet here you are dictating to me how i must type my beliefs.

     Nowhere in my original statement did I state anything with certainty, more like you jumping to conclusions and being misunderstood on the net, cant really express emotions can I ?

    • Like 2

    Solar and Aurora Activity Chat

    in Space, Science & nature

    Posted · Edited by Minus 10
    additional information

    2 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

    Al Gore ain't an expert and nobody has accused you of slander in any way. Nor has anyone been censored or attacked. I haven't even dictated what words you use. I'm not engaging here as a moderator, just another user.

    As someone who's open to studying and who realises there are few things certain in the universe, why speak of speculative ideas in certain terms?  It's not a fault to express doubt in an idea where doubt exists.
    To have a vague theory pointed out as being unproven shouldn't be viewed as an attack or censorship. Nor should providing an explanation and evidence to support the fact that the idea presented is unproven. This can be argument and counter-argument scenario, promoting discussion and exchange of ideas and evidence. 

    To exclaim "attack" or "censorship" every time an unproven idea is not accepted as gospel is hardly a positive approach.

    Void, you are still telling me how to word something that I believe to  be more accurate in terms of scientific theory, if others dont want to accept it, thats  fine, if people like it and agree with it well thats fine too. Speak your truth brother and i'll  speak mine but dont tell me i cant use a word like certain in my sentence, and by the way i didnt even use the word "certain", but I still have the right to use that word. In the case of misleading people, dont people have their own minds? arent we all adult and sensible enough to make up our own minds and do our own research, the internet is a wonderful tool. Surely everyone on this forum are not naive and  easily lead?

    If I write a piece on science and state im absolutely sure, or im certain, cant people have the right to just snigger and laugh at me and maybe call me a crack pot, they have the freedom and right to do that and trust me im not easily offended, no skin of my nose. But when one is accused of misleading people when there is no "Intention" of misleading anyone just speaking my truth, then it gets more serious and I have lost respect for you as a member and a moderator on this forum.

    Im well aware that Al Gore wasnt  a scientist, he was a politician that lost the election in 2000 to a Kleptocrat aka George Bush. He went on to make the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" basically explaining burning fossil fuels is warming our earth and we were all in danger. A lot of his predictions didnt come true, or havent come true yet. We shall see in the future. But personally i dont believe his predictions and I have the right to speak it.

    • Like 2

    Solar and Aurora Activity Chat

    in Space, Science & nature

    Posted · Edited by Minus 10

    Excuse me Void, Id prefer if you chose not to dictate to me what i cant or can write, im not offending anyone with slander or abusive words. I merely write what I believe regarding my studies and research.  I for one know that nothing in this universe is  certain, im a student in various subjects regarding these matters. I dont believe that there is such a thing as absolute truth in this universe. Experts have predicted many things with certainty and got it wrong. Al Gore comes to mind... Am i a human being? possiibly, most likely, maybe, probably, lol. The universe and our climate are complex yes? Im certainly not a divisive  person, quite the opposite actually, I believe in unity, united we stand, divided we fall. In a world of duality will we achieve unity, i doubt it unless its under a tyrannical order or everyone becomes enlightened. And in a world of duality there will always be an argument and counter-argument. The goal is to debate and reason without attack and censor of ones beliefs, is that happening....no, quite the contrary.

    Perhaps you could do well in fulfilling your role as a moderator and not dictating what wordage I use in my studies, unless its aggressive, abusive, or of a sniping nature.

    And I would also like to pay my respects to David Bellamy and his family, a true scientist. RIP

    Regards

    • Like 2

    Solar and Aurora Activity Chat

    in Space, Science & nature

    Posted

    When the sun enters its minimum phase of cycle, minimal sunspots occur and in turn does not produce many G,M or X flares. The sun is in its resting phase during minimum, its magnetic field weakens and thus allows cosmic radiation to flow into our earths atmosphere. Cosmic radiation aka cosmic rays attack our earth in large quantities and thus nucleation of atmospheric particles happens which create more clouds producing a tremendous amounts of rain. In colder climates this precipitation can fall as snow and we have witnessed copious amounts of snow in certain regions already ie: Iceland, Siberia, Montana etc:  In warmer climates this phenomena brings dangerous floods. When the sun is in its minimum phase, another phenomena happens, the jet stream which flows from west to east around our globe becomes meriodinial, in other words, instead of it flowing from west to east flatly, it flows in vertical wavy motion, this can bring extreme weather differences, from heat to bitter cold, from flooding rains to severe blizzards. Phenomena number 3: Cosmic rays penetrate our earth and this can ignite silica rich magma underneath volcano ducts, this in turn causes volcanoes to erupt and usually as history has proven some of these volcanoes have exceeded levels of VEI5 and 6. Volcanic ash and sulfur dioxide reaching an height of 32,500 ft will have an effect on the local climate where the volcano erupts, 70,000-120,000ft eruption will cool the globe for at least 2 to 3 years think mount Tambora in 1816 which lead to a year without a summer. Luckily we have not experienced a VEI 6 level eruption in this solar minimum or the cycle 23, but i am holding my breath because its only a matter of time before it does happen especially with our earths magnetic field depleted by over 20% since 1900. So two phenomenon that are directly attributed to solar minimum, 1: increase of cloud cover, 2: large volcanic eruptions creating particulates in our stratosphere thus blocking out sunlight. As Weather History explained above solar minimum is not conducive to colder winters which is paradoxical, but the factors that i have explained above are responsible for global cooling. Many winters in our past that have been cold were actually going through solar maximum. Europe has been remarkarkbly mild the past 30 years, will a VEI6 eruption change that, time will tell. Are we suffering from lag effect from warming from the 90s and 2000s?

    • Like 5

    Solar and Aurora Activity Chat

    in Space, Science & nature

    Posted

    1 hour ago, SteveB said:

    31 days blank, 268 for 2019, 77%

    Solar flux 69

    Thermosphere: 3.19

    Well we have equalled 2008, with 16 days still to go. Amazing that we ha done it style, with a 30+ day blank stretch too.

    sorry to correct you steve, but we have actually 17 days to go.

    we seem to be steam boating ahead with sunspotless count, maybe solar cycle 25 we could reach over 300m if not cycle 26 will definitely do it.

    • Like 2

    Solar and Aurora Activity Chat

    in Space, Science & nature

    Posted · Edited by Minus 10
    typo

    1 hour ago, BLAST FROM THE PAST said:

    I believe we will best 2008 of 268 spotless days, as I believe we are deepening further into the minima.  
    Thermosphere not as cold as 02/2009.....but let’s see whet happens Feb 2020.....as it’s not far off now.  Very interesting times indeed

     

    BFTP

    Thermosphere not as cold,,,yet, but mesosphere coldest since records began in mid nineties, and stratosphere is so cold the arctic stratosphere is reaching minima of -85c creating polar stratospheric clouds in Sweden.

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...