And the Sun doesn’t seem to play along

We are in sun cycle 25 which according to all calculations and predictions are suppose to be lower than cycle 24 while on its way to the cooling period that is going to affect earth and food production seriously from cycle 26 onwards. So what is causing this unsuspected uptick in sunspots while the work of Prof. Valentina Zharkova is obviously accurate?



My best guess is that it’s caused by the 1500 year cycle most of us are familiarly by know. This is when the 4 Jovan planets come close together on one side of the Sun. Yes many of us thought April 8 will be a critical date with the moon ellipse across northern America. However none of us can tell the precise positions and conditions if or when earth will be affected.
Earth will however move between the Sun and 4 Jovan planets from around the 28 of August 2024 till around February 2025 (logic tells me we will see an increase in earthquakes and volcanic eruptions). Most of us believing in the sun cycles and the link between the barycentre and the solar systems magnetic orientation should understand this influence. If the outcome is good or bad we do not know.



But the way the western politicians are going we will not have to wait to see if a natural disaster will occur

wattsupwiththat.com...

I believe it's a 12000 year cycle

Link to Data backed by Astro Physics recent papers and Theories

Here is one video to get you started. All of this is sourced and real new stuff that is coming from the space based telescopes.

a reply to: ICycle2

it's all them alien space craft suckin off juice got sun all screwed up.

originally posted by: Justoneman
I believe it's a 12000 year cycle
... All of this is sourced

Yes that channel provides sources, but when you read the sources yourself, they don't actually support the doomsday pseudoscience that SuspiciousObservers claims. Why would you try to get science from a lawyer instead of from a scientist? Do you go to a barber to get heart surgery? Or go to a heart surgeon?

Suspicious0bservers is a Pseudoscientific Doomsday Cult

If you look at the comments, you will see that one of the authors (Yuan Li) of one of the papers Professor Dave talked about commented that yes, Ben Davidson did misrepresent her paper which does NOT support Ben's pseudoscience, something Ben does all the time. ProfDave pinned that comment at the top:

Yuan Li
3 months ago
I am the second author of the paper you talked about at 7:10. When this was brought to my attention, I was shocked. We scientists tend to ignore all the pseudoscience stuff, but maybe we should pay more attention in the future. We work so hard to educate the public, but these conspiracy pseudoscientists are undoing our work. Thank you, Professor Dave, for taking your time to debunk the conspiracy theories. And just in case there is any confusion, our paper is about clouds in the interstellar medium, and has nothing to do with any of the doomsday BS.

originally posted by: ICycle2
So what is causing this unsuspected uptick in sunspots while the work of Prof. Valentina Zharkova is obviously accurate?

I look at this graph of solar cycles 1-24 and I don't see any clear patterns that enable us to predict what the maximum sunspot number will be in cycle 25:

Graph of Historical Solar Cycles


The rightmost, last cycle on that graph, number 24, is rather wimpy by historical standards. I can understand why someone might think that if the last cycle (24) was wimpy, maybe this cycle (25) will be wimpy too, which as you said is sort of what was predicted, but that seems like an educated guess at best. Most previous cycles on record are not that wimpy, so I don't see why anybody would be surprised that the next cycle might not be that wimpy. So my take is that the data is showing us what I can already see by looking at that graph...that solar cycle sunspot numbers look hard to predict accurately.

So when data comes in to show a prediction of a weak maximum in solar cycle 25 was not accurate, it's hardly surprising to me, just look at how much the historical data jumps around. If some people are expecting maximum sunspot number predictions to be accurate, my suggestion to those people is to lower your expectations for now, at least until our understanding and models improve enough to permit accurate predictions.

Not everybody predicted cycle 25 would be as weak as cycle 24; McIntosh and colleages actually predicted what we are seeing, a stronger cycle 25:

Sunspot Activity on The Sun Is Seriously Exceeding Official Predictions

In 2014, a team of scientists led by solar physicist Scott McIntosh of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research looked at long-term solar cycle trends, and found that the 11-year timing is just an average. Some solar cycles are a little longer than 11 years, and some are a little shorter.

A solar cycle following a longer cycle, they noticed, was likely to be on the weaker side. But a cycle following a shorter cycle was likely to be stronger. Solar Cycle 23 was long, which is consistent with the weakness of Solar Cycle 24. But Solar Cycle 24 was also short, coming in at just under 10 years.

This, McIntosh and his colleagues predicted in 2020, meant that Solar Cycle 25 was likely to be stronger – perhaps among the strongest on record. And the climbing sunspot numbers would suggest they may have been onto something.

"Scientists have struggled to predict both the length and the strength of sunspot cycles because we lack a fundamental understanding of the mechanism that drives the cycle," McIntosh said at the time.

"If our forecast proves correct, we will have evidence that our framework for understanding the Sun's internal magnetic machine is on the right path."

So do Scott McIntosh and colleagues have a better way to predict solar cycles? Looks like their prediction was more accurate for cycle 25 than the "official prediction", but we will have to see how their calculations work out for future cycles with regard to consistent accuracy.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yip, any predictions stay a gamble but the breakthroughs in understanding the sun and the double dynamo effect put forward by Prof. Valentina Zharkova take us to a new level of understanding. The problem with her prediction seems to be that the 1500 year cycle is overriding the Mercury effect.

That is why I speculate that it must be the magnetic influences by the 4 Jovan planets on one side of the sun rather than questioning her work. (My private opinion)

youtu.be...

a reply to: ICycle2
Valentina Zharkova may understand it better than most of us but apparently even her model needs improvement.

I speculate that it must be the magnetic influences by the 4 Jovan planets on one side of the sun rather than questioning her work.

Here are my thoughts on that speculation.

Jupiter's magnetic field is absolutely huge. Some say it's the largest structure in our solar system after the heliopause. It's also an order of magnitude stronger than Earth's magnetic field, so Jupiter's magnetosphere has a long reach, from 7 million km in the direction of the sun to almost the orbit of Saturn in the opposite direction.

7 milion km is a long distance to be sure, but not long enough. The minimum distance between earth and Jupiter is 588 million km, so 7 million km falls far short of that 588 million km distance to Earth, which explains why we don't really see any significant effects from Jupiter's magnetic field around the Earth.

So if Jupiter's magnetic field isn't affecting Earth, I don't understand why you think it would affect the sun which is even more than 588 million km from the sun (Earth orbits at roughly 150 million km from the sun).

You mention multiple planets but none have magnetospheres larger or more powerful than Jupiter, and therefore are too far away to have much effect on the Earth or the sun.

Magnetosphere of Jupiter

Extending up to seven million kilometers in the Sun's direction and almost to the orbit of Saturn in the opposite direction, Jupiter's magnetosphere is the largest and most powerful of any planetary magnetosphere in the Solar System, and by volume the largest known continuous structure in the Solar System after the heliosphere.

I can't tell you exactly why predictions from Zharkova's model are not agreeing with actual data from the current solar cycle, but I can tell you the sun is about 100 times too far away from Jupiter for your speculation to be plausible (minimum distance from Jupiter to the sun is 741 million km; compare that to Jupiter's magnetosphere extending 7 million km in the direction of the sun).

I already posted my best guess which is that since the data appear to be consistent with the predictions of Scott McIntosh and colleagues, it looks like they may be on to something, though as I said we still need several solar cycles to fully evaluate their model or any improved model. For all I know, McIntosh and colleagues just got lucky on this solar cycle and maybe their predictions won't work out so well in the future cycles, but I'm rooting for their idea to be more than a lucky guess. Their idea seems to have some kind of logical consistency.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Why are you nitpicking that? What they do support is the data from Hubble Telescope, SOHO, and The James Webb Telescope.

He shows you papers that support his theory and they are real papers. You are poo poohing the data because of a theory?

Not how it works. His theory is yet to be proven wrong because the new data says the things he has reported as happening in real physical ways are happening in fact.

Does it mean his theory on the Earth disaster is a fact, just his opinion. Of course in my opinion, I HOPE it is NOT true!

originally posted by: Justoneman
He shows you papers that support his theory and they are real papers. You are poo poohing the data because of a theory?

I think you misunderstood something. Yes he shows real papers. The part that's not real is where he tells us his misinterpretation of what the papers say, and then says the papers support his doomsday theory, but they don't. I gave you an example from a scientist who said it's a real paper, but it's not about what Ben claims it's about, and it doesn't support Ben's doomsday theory.

Does it mean his theory on the Earth disaster is a fact, just his opinion. Of course in my opinion, I HOPE it is NOT true!

I don't know if it's really his opinion or not. I know Ben Davidson is saying BS, but I'm not sure whether he knows it's BS or not, like Tucker Carlson knew what he was telling us about Dominion voting machines was BS but he told us the BS anyway, it wasn't really his opinion. Carlson was more concerned with increasing revenue streams than telling us his true opinion, and I think it's safe to say that Carlson is not the only one guilty of doing that! So my point is, you seem to be assuming what Ben is telling us is his opinion, and I'm suggestuing you may want to be more skeptical and question if it's really his opinion, or if he knows it's BS. I'm not assuming Ben is telling us his opinion.

Hi everyone, I just found this interesting article for perhaps a little more insight into this phenomenon. Enjoy.

How 400-Year-Old Sunspot Sketches Are Solving Modern Solar Puzzles

Using updated statistical methods and historical data, scientists have reinterpreted Johannes Kepler’s sunspot drawings, shedding light on the solar cycles before the Maunder Minimum and the onset of the telescopic era of astronomy.

scitechdaily.com...

iopscience.iop.org... (I will read it when I have time)

a reply to: quintessentone

Thanx for the outstanding contribution

a reply to: quintessentone

I found this very interesting , and might explain why astrological forecasts especially the vedic kind might have some substance with regards to earthquake prediction. The theory being that when the sun is active the amount of earthquakes drops significantly. When it is inactive they tend to go up. This seems to be tied to the heliosphere that when being energetic keeps the galactic rays diverted from the Earth, and when inactive makes for a large increase hitting the earth. At the moment the sun has been very active and the cosmic rays hitting the Earth have lessened. In the graph you can see a correlation that we are in a position where the general siesmic activity is far less than its usual hum. If a line up of planets occur along with conjuctions we could be protected from cosmic ray bombardment with the planets acting as a sheild, if they occur when the sun is active then we get a double effect with a higher drop of in activity. But at the same time the stresses in the earths crust haven't stopped building but the trigger event of the cosmic bombardment has. So when the suns activity and the conjuctions disapear then it is logical to assume that when the trigger event occurs again with the higher rate of cosmic rays they release a greater build up of stress and hence a larger earthquake .

a reply to: annonentity

What an intriguing theory.

a reply to: quintessentone

This guy seems to be getting them right as regards to planetary stress in the solar system as well. He thinks a mega thrust could be taking place around the 20th of this month..he predicted the one which has just happened in Japan to the day , and has a good hit rate

a reply to: annonentity

It's great that people like him are thinking outside the box to predict earthquakes, it is a worthy cause.

My thinking outside this Earth box goes to how does planetary alignment and/or our orbital trek through the cosmos' known and unknown forces affect our Sun and the planets, and ultimately Earth. It appears the answer may lie in studying geologic events in conjunction with planetary alignment and perhaps Sun science.

If we really think about the theory of how our Sun and solar system is hurtling through the cosmos, I'd say either we are lucky, are biding our time, or there is a divine hand guiding us.

Thanks for your exemplary contributions.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ok, there was a claim of mis interpretations that are now part of the science is all I was trying to explain. The science has caught up to the fact there is data out there we have not ever seen before that we are analyzing. I think you need to dig in and restudy the papers and be careful to understand our original ideas on these things are being proven wrong and the Published data is very telling. Going back to the drawing board stuff.