Solar and Aurora Activity Chat

[BornFromTheVoid]

25 minutes ago, Minus 10 said:

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.

Describing something as being directly attributed to another thing (i.e., like it's certain), when it is, scientifically speaking, not directly attributed to that thing is misleading. This is true whether there was intention to mislead or not.
If you believe your idea, or truth, is accurate and those things are directly linked, then ok. Just don't call it science, otherwise, people might call it out for not being entirely scientific and even expect you to have some evidence and be able to defend your "scientific theory".

[Minus 10]

 

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 ?

Edited December 23, 2019 by Minus 10
typo

[ciel]

25 minutes ago, Minus 10 said:

 

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 ?

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 somewhat unconvincing.

Edited December 23, 2019 by ciel

[Minus 10]

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

[ciel]

This forum forms part of my 'research'

[Minus 10]

Just now, ciel said:

This forum forms part of my 'research'

theres more than this forum

[ciel]

2 minutes ago, Minus 10 said:

theres more than this forum

Quite. However if you wish to promote your views on this platform, then it would be helpful if evidence was provided on here.

[Minus 10]

9 minutes ago, ciel said:

Quite. However if you wish to promote your views on this platform, then it would be helpful if evidence was provided on here.

It would be poo pooed by Void and friends so why bother

[Methuselah]

39 minutes ago, Minus 10 said:

It would be poo pooed by Void and friends so why bother

Perhaps? But this is a 'science-based' forum...There are gazillions of 'feelings-based' echo-chambers out there!

[Kirkcaldy Weather]

Some articles to add to the discussion (wont link properly but type in google and click on the agupubs links - Solar influence on winter severity in central Europe

Solar+influence+on+winter+severity+in+central+Europe - Google Search

WWW.GOOGLE.COM

Are cold winters in Europe associated with low solar activity? - IOPscience

IOPSCIENCE.IOP.ORG

Dynamic winter climate response to large tropical volcanic eruptions since 1600

Dynamic+winter+climate+response+to+large+tropical+volcanic+eruptions+since+1600 - Google Search

WWW.GOOGLE.COM

What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near‐surface temperature changes? 

What+influence+will+future+solar+activity+changes+over+the+21st+century+have+on+projected+global+near‐surface+temperature+changes? - Google Search

WWW.GOOGLE.COM

 

Edited December 23, 2019 by Kirkcaldy Weather

[Katrine Basso]

https://www.solarham.net/

Solar-terrestrial data

25th December 2019 09:12 AM GMT

Sunspot number: 0

Solar Flux Index: 70

 

[karyo]

Two cycle 25 sunspots have appeared according to spaceweather.

[Minus 10]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 26, 2019 by Minus 10
typo

[Minus 10]

thermosphere 31.2 billion watts

kp index 3

neutron count 9.6% high

[reef]

A few off-topic post have been removed. Please stick to solar and Aurora chat.

Thanks

[Minus 10]

thermosphere 28.6 billion watts

neutron count 9.4% high

kp index 1

[SteveB]

1 day blank, 278 for 2019, 78%

Solar flux 72

Thermosphere: 2.86

[Katrine Basso]

https://spaceweather.gc.ca/solarflux/sx-4-en.php

Latest Solar Radio Flux Report from DRAO, Penticton

Flux Density Values in sfu for 2019-12-27 at 22:00

Julian Day Number                         2458845.406

Carrington Rotation Number      2225.656

Observed Flux Density                  72.7

Flux Density Adjusted for 1 A.U.  70.3

URSI Series D Flux, Adj. x 0.9      63.3

[Minus 10]

thermosphere 28.0 billion watts

neutron count 9.2% high

kp index 1

[Cheshire Freeze]

On 20/12/2019 at 14:49, drgl said:

Is it time to start thinking that any link between low sun spot numbers and colder winters in Europe was either a coincidence or has been eradicated by climate change? I think if next winter is mild my mind will be made up I know this winter is far from over but I would have at least hoped to have seen some snow by now. On the plus side we've had a fair few frosts. Just sick of all this rain...

This winter has been killed by the Pacific, nothing more and nothing less. 

The LAST thing you want to see in winter is a warm N Pacific allied to a near neutral ENSO

[Katrine Basso]

Sunspot Number :0

Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 2 days
2019 total: 279 days (77%)

The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 72 sfu

[JeffC]

5 hours ago, Katrine Basso said:

Sunspot Number :0

Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 2 days
2019 total: 279 days (77%)

The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 72 sfu

Adjusted flux 69.1

[Don]

10 hours ago, CreweCold said:

This winter has been killed by the Pacific, nothing more and nothing less. 

The LAST thing you want to see in winter is a warm N Pacific allied to a near neutral ENSO

We really need to lose those warm anomalies in the North East Pacific asap!

[Minus 10]

thermosphere 26.9 billion watts

neutron count 9.0% high

kp index 1

[Katrine Basso]

Sunspot Number: 0

Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 3 days
2019 total: 280 days (77%)

The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 72 sfu