Sunspot #24 Largest Sunspot Maximum For 400 Years!!

reply to post by BLUE ARMS


Do yourself a favor and read the post etiquitte and rules. Three consecutive posts in a row can be shortened into one; also, there is no need to put several spaces inbetween every line.

Secondly, isn't this post supposed to be about sunspots and the solar cycle? Not HAM radios.

We all know that CMEs and peaks of solar activity increase the range of HAM communication. That is not something either debatable, or something being questioned here. What is supposed to be under the fire of discussion, is why you think that we're going to have an extreme solar maximum in 2012. So far, this cycle has been the weakest cycle in about two hundred years. Currently all prediction methods to the trend in how many sunspots we should have currently, are completely inaccurate-- including Hathaway's which is the one you were trying to base your opinion on.

I am not trying to hate on you, simply trying to get your side of the opinion, with some fact to back it up. I am NOT trying to have a discussion on how solar activity effects HAM radio.

Alright... I'll bite.

The most powerful solar storm on record, known as the Carrington Event or the Solar Superstorm, occurred in 1859. Many people point to it and squeal "SEE!! OMFG! It happened at a minimum!!!"

This is pure tripe.

From Wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org...

"Just before noon on September 1, the British astronomer Richard Carrington observed the largest flare,[3] which caused a massive coronal mass ejection (CME)"

This CME happened to be pointed straight at Earth.. or at least where Earth would be at by the time it got to us. The effects were unnerving. Telegraph stations actually caught on fire from the surge currents that flowed across the Earth... the Aurora was seen as far south as the Caribbean.

"Yeah yeah yeah, but did it happen at a minimum?"

Nope. It happened on about month 91 of sunspot Cycle 10. Sure, it was on the downward trend, and happened at a local null in the cycle... but it was not the minimum. that didn't happen for another 40 some odd months.

Here... I made a graph. Enjoy.

Sunspot Cycle 10:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7a687680c5f2.jpg[/atsimg]


And I don't give a rats arse if you are a Ham or not. You get a CME, and the E layer, the D layer, and the F1/F2 layers won't mean squat. Magnetic reconnection events in the Magnetosphere cause effects similar to massive EMP bursts. If his gear survives, he might be the only one left talking, that's about it.

Originally posted by BLUE ARMS
THE SUNSPOT "11 YEAR CYCLE" is an unfortunate FACT that is at MAXIMUM in 2012..

Actually... the cycle average is about 130.4 Months (10.86 years) StdDev (σ) = 15 mo.

Currently, we are at about 159 months by the measure of a "definite upward trend" indicating the next cycle is underway (i.e. by using the same standard that they have since 1700, and not shifts in magnetic polarization of the sunspot), despite what SIDC states.

One other historical cycle has had a longer duration than this one.. and that was cycle 4... and that was part of the Dalton minimum. We have already exceeded the length of cycle 5... which was also in the Dalton Minimum... at least by my measure. (4 lasted ~ 169 months and 5 lasted ~ 156 months)


And I'm just some random guy on the Internet.



[edit on 10-9-2009 by RoofMonkey]

Originally posted by BLUE ARMS


HF does not work like the above,

"Always-on" comms,

World-wide during Sunspot Maximums,

#24 has the potential to make HF comms the only working solution,

Ironically.

Peace

BLUE ARMS

Thats one hell of a solution you got there.
A year or two of messaging and just sit around drinking for another 9 years waiting for the next solar max assuming it ever arrives at all. I would nearly give you a star for that solution alone. Again what you doing here if HF is so fab..

peace

daz

i love this topic star and flag

SUN IN MY MOUTH

Originally posted by SlasherOfVeils
reply to post by BLUE ARMS

 

Do yourself a favor and read the post etiquitte and rules. Three consecutive posts in a row can be shortened into one; also, there is no need to put several spaces inbetween every line.

Secondly, isn't this post supposed to be about sunspots and the solar cycle? Not HAM radios.



I am not trying to hate on you

Really?

Originally posted by daz__

Originally posted by BLUE ARMS


HF does not work like the above,

"Always-on" comms,

World-wide during Sunspot Maximums,

#24 has the potential to make HF comms the only working solution,

Ironically.

Peace

BLUE ARMS

Thats one hell of a solution you got there.
A year or two of messaging and just sit around drinking for another 9 years waiting for the next solar max assuming it ever arrives at all. I would nearly give you a star for that solution alone. Again what you doing here if HF is so fab..

peace

daz

Hi Daz,

Thanks for your input,

HF is not just fab, it is quite simply amazing. When I am not spending 2 seconds of my time on ATS I use HF everyday and so do Millions of like minded Radio Amateurs.

HF is an interesting part of the radio spectrum because it has without doubt the most potential for instant global communications, especially in a World where the microwave parts of the spectrum are the main stay. (Mobile phones, Wi-Fi, Satellite TV & comms, Military comms etc.)

HF is basically 0-30Mhz all modes (AM, FM, USB, LSB, CW) including data modes SSTV, RTTY etc.

The lower end of HF 0-7Mhz is not particulary affected by the Sunspot cycle, infact on the 80-meter band (3.5Mhz), Europe to USA is possible even in Sunspot minimums, like now for example. Where as the higher parts of the HF radio spectrum 14-30Mhz are affected massively by the Sunspot cycle and allow communications that would not normally exist during Sunspot minimums.

Basically, the higher in frequency the smaller the aerial. This means for example that mobile (car - car) or portable (backpack - backpack) communications globally are also very possible during a Sunspot maximum, the bigger the Sunspot peak, the easier and more abundant HF communications become.

NO ONE can predict the future, so many people who have joined this thread to debunk it have nothing to debunk with, other that more "future-predictions". Of which some have already cast an immediate shadow of doubt over, then go ahead to show other "Future-predictions"

Quite amusing to say the least.

I based my facts on MSFC/Hathaway/Nasa's previous data, which has been proved 100% correct, a fact seemingly missed by some of the debunker posts above. MSFC/Hathaway/Nasa's "future-prediction" for Sunspot #23 was spot-on if you pardon the pun and their data for #24 is I believe going to be as accurate as their previous predictions.

I have been looking at the data since 1997 and MSFC/Hathaway/Nasa's predictive data has been proved 100% correct, I have screen-shots of their predictions and susequent 'actual' data, the facts speak for themselves.

I would not have started this thread at all even if I had a single doubt that the data is wrong or there is not going to be a huge Sunspot peak around 2012. As I have previously stated the Sunspot peak or maximum arrives much sooner than it dissapears as most Radio Amateurs can tell you but one fact that is interesting to me is, Sunspot induced HF radio propagation is especially good during the Winter months (October-March) in the northern Hemisphere, peaking around December, not so good during the Summer.

Always found that facinating,

A good site for checking Sunspot cycle 24 data by Amateur radio station VE3EN, updated every 2 minutes, here;

www.solarcycle24.com...

Peace

BLUE ARMS







[edit on 13-9-2009 by BLUE ARMS]

[edit on 13-9-2009 by BLUE ARMS]

Originally posted by BLUE ARMS

I based my facts on MSFC/Hathaway/Nasa's previous data, which has been proved 100% correct, a fact seemingly missed by some of the debunker posts above. MSFC/Hathaway/Nasa's "future-prediction" for Sunspot #23 was spot-on if you pardon the pun and their data for #24 is I believe going to be as accurate as their previous predictions.

Which is why Hathaway has changed his prediction nine times in five years.

Here is a recent quote from David Hathaway himself...

” Still, something like the Dalton Minimum — two solar cycles in the early 1800s that peaked at about an average of 50 sunspots — lies in the realm of the possible.”

If you constantly change your prediction to match what you have already measured... you will get a very high percentage of correlation. That is until it is noticed that your just fudging it.

Here is a plot of Hathaway's Cycle 24 predictions... presented sequentially.




Its over at solarcycle24com.proboards.com...



Here is an image that I posted a few responses back, I bring it forward to illustrate a point.

The predicted curve for 24, is a statistical average of all historical sunspot cycles that have been recorded for the last 254 years. The shape of this curve is very similar to what Hathaway uses in his prediction. It's data based on past observations. Leading into it are the actual numbers from Cycle 23.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7a5e58b475c4.jpg[/atsimg]

Generally, sunspot cycles will have two peaks. These two peaks are the cycle maximums in the North and South hemispheres of the Sun. One usually peaks about 18 to 20 months before the other hemisphere... occasionally you get a tipple peak, where one hemisphere peaks, declines, both contribute to the total, then the other side peaks as the opposite side declines. Averaged out, it looks like this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/419a5407b5ce.jpg[/atsimg]

This is the chart that projected Cycle 24 curve in the previous plot comes from. The difference being that the standard deviations are not shown.

Now... what Hathaway and NASA do.. periodically, is to slide their prediction down the time line, changing the weighting and coming up with a few buzzwords to occasionally justify it. My plot, from above, is hard planted at the point that SIDC (Solar Influences Data Center in Belgium) declared that cycle 24 had started. SIDC has the final call on the suspot number. (They are the data clearing house).

Now.. if you want to get alarmed, this graph should do it. It is a plot of the length of all historical cycles. (the ones we actually have counted.. i.e. 23) going back 254 years.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/659ced335303.jpg[/atsimg]

Should we still be in the cycle 23, which by historical reasoning we are, then this shows that cycle 23 is gaining ground on the Dalton era lengths.


Note: by "historical reasoning", I mean that the sunspot numbers have not started going up. 19th century observers had no way of knowing that sunspots had changed polarity. They counted the cycles by when the count began to increase.







[edit on 13-9-2009 by RoofMonkey]

Originally posted by BLUE ARMS
NO ONE can predict the future, so many people who have joined this thread to debunk it have nothing to debunk with, other that more "future-predictions". Of which some have already cast an immediate shadow of doubt over, then go ahead to show other "Future-predictions"

...

MSFC/Hathaway/Nasa's "future-prediction" for Sunspot #23 was spot-on if you pardon the pun and their data for #24 is I believe going to be as accurate as their previous predictions.

First you go on saying noone can predict the future, and "future predictions are not proper evidence, but hathaway's data from 2006 for cycle 24 (which has been modified SEVERAL TIMES by Hathaway since then, because it was inaccurate btw). See roofmonkey's visual graph for more detail. Stop being hypocritical-- its bad science to ignore data which you are doing basing your claim on old data.

I based my facts on MSFC/Hathaway/Nasa's previous data, which has been proved 100% correct, a fact seemingly missed by some of the debunker posts above.

First off NASA has a comittee which looks at data from over twenty something different predicitions, and votes on the most accurate model to follow based on the early trends of the solar cycle. But please explain how 2006 hathaway data which was altered in 2007, again in 2008, and continues to be altered as this extended solar minimum continues is 100% correct. "I predict X... oh its Y? well see I said Y (as he quickly erases a line on the X to make a Y)" Thats not 100% correct dude.

I have been looking at the data since 1997 and MSFC/Hathaway/Nasa's predictive data has been proved 100% correct, I have screen-shots of their predictions and susequent 'actual' data, the facts speak for themselves.

PLEASE DO considering each will have a different "prediction" since hathaway's curve fitting model only fits to data. And since you only have submitted one outdated source so far.

I would not have started this thread at all even if I had a single doubt that the data is wrong or there is not going to be a huge Sunspot peak around 2012. As I have previously stated the Sunspot peak or maximum arrives much

Most people start threads because they want to subject their theory and thoughts to peer review. Even hathaway and NASA have doubts about this solar cycle yet the omniscent HAM radio specialist you are somehow gives you proper credentials to have more faith in your theory then specialized solar astronomers? Amazing.

A good site for checking Sunspot cycle 24 data by Amateur radio station VE3EN, updated every 2 minutes, here;

www.solarcycle24.com...

I agree. Maybe you should actually read it? Considering the data on that website disagrees with you.



ps. again the one line comment prior to this post, is again, against TOS.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by SlasherOfVeils]

Here's a few links from your own posted website disagreeing with you.

First off, this lovely animated GIF of Nasa's solar cycle sunspots predictions, and how they have changed.



Notice how the predicted peak has shifted from 2012 to well into 2013 as new data comes in?



See how the black data bottomed out again while the red line says we need to be getting more? Take a look at the front page again of the cite, solarcycle24.com, and notice how BLANK the sun is and has been all summer.

Not to mention, the maximum peak predicted using Hathaway's method is far much less powerful than cycle 23's maximum. Was it originally predicted to be bigger? Yes, but then it was modified when the data and trends started to show otherwise.

Being fair... there is the possibilty of a significant Cycle 24 sunspot as reported by WUWT.

A significant SC24 spot may be in the making

Its on the back side of the Sun... and may or may not be real. Well, its a real "thing"... but whether the magnetic feild of it is strong enough to actually make a spot... and of the right polarity... has yet to be seen.


[snicker] From the comments section there:

Richard deSousa (15:25:48) :

This is idiotic…. one spot (may be) showing up and the solar scientists go nuts! It’ll take more than one spot a month to revive the sun.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by RoofMonkey]