PDA

View Full Version : 2012 sunspot cycle theory



silkyjla30
2010-Oct-06, 10:16 PM
First off, I appreciate the help in the pole shift thread.

My new question is in regards to Patrick Geryl's sun spot cycle theory. The folks at 2012hoax.org took a look at it and I wouldn't mind you all doing the same.

Geryl seems to think that there are much larger solar cycles than the tradition 11 and 22 year ones. In fact, he states that he has found an 11,500 year cycle. Can one of you solar physicist take a look at it and see if he's actually on to anything. He was off by only one day supposedly on the last solar flare on August 1st. He's made an Oct 27 prediction for the next.

Here is the link:
http://www.howtosurvive2012.com/htm_night/sun_05.htm


Thanks in advance,

P.S. He took the original idea from Maurice Cotterell and supposedly corrected it.

JayUtah
2010-Oct-06, 10:33 PM
I haven't followed your link yet, as I'm presently unable to. However I've read a fair amount of the solar physics literature that attempts to find long-term periodicity in the solar cycles. So far nothing really promising. It takes a whole lot of statistical and metrical know-how to properly investigate such a phenomenon. "Sunspots" alone aren't really enough. The Sun's behavior is more complex than that.

R.A.F.
2010-Oct-06, 10:39 PM
I haven't followed your link yet, as I'm presently unable to.

It's pretty much the same old pseudo-science "junk".

...and of course there are books for sale! :)

JayUtah
2010-Oct-06, 11:59 PM
Oh, I see -- it's the Svalgaard-Dikpati debate. Dikpati's "stunning" correlation over the past eight solar cycles is a statistical artifact. That is, it should be read with a grain of salt. Dikpati's model, if memory serves, has failed to predict the rising-edge behavior of Cycle 24 whereas Svalgaard's has. The scientific community is mostly taking a "wait and see" approach, but your page simply says Dikpati is right and Svalgaard is wrong.

silkyjla30
2010-Oct-07, 06:33 PM
I wasn't even sure he used her as an example for the data. Down the page, he does a bunch of calculations. I have no idea what the heck they mean. Can you all explain in a little more detail?

AstroRockHunter
2010-Oct-07, 06:41 PM
According to http://www.smeter.net/propagation/sunspots/current-sunspot-cycle.php (http://www.smeter.net/propagation/sunspots/current-sunspot-cycle.php), the predictions for the start of the current cycle by both proponents were incorrect by over a year. This does not bode well for their models.

AstroRockHunter
2010-Oct-07, 07:02 PM
This subject has always interested me, and I came across this site http://www.solarcycle24.com/ while researching the OP.

Lots of good information on the current cycle for those interested.

silkyjla30
2010-Oct-07, 07:03 PM
Interesting, but I don't specifically think that Geryl is "actually" using her model. I think he just put that on his page as an example. However, as you go down the page, he has what looks like a periodicity chart or something of the sort. Is that related? Another guy said it was basic arithmetic, but it looks like chicken scratch to me. Thanks for the help so far!

rigel
2010-Oct-12, 07:39 PM
AstroRockHunter. Intersting site that I had forgotten about. I don't know why there is any concern about the 2012 sunspot cycle since this seems a low year.

silkyjla30
2010-Oct-27, 10:20 PM
I posted this on 2012 hoax and the fine folks there have always been very helpful. Can y'all tell me more? What has the solar activity been like the last 87 days?

http://blog.2012pro.com/2012/prediction-next-complex-eruption-of-the-sun
Can one of the solar physicist on here explain a bit more?
Thanks for the continued help.

NickW
2010-Oct-28, 12:34 AM
You can check all that stuff out, silkyjla30 at:

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/

I would help you more, but I am not a physicist and really only know what I read. Sorry.

silkyjla30
2010-Oct-28, 03:50 AM
very cool link Nick. I just have trouble knowing what to look for. I plugged it in for the last 87 days. But How do I determine which flares are heading toward earth and what activity is a CME? This stuff is still Greek to me.

Anymore help is greatly appreciated!

silkyjla30
2010-Oct-28, 03:53 AM
I also checked out the link that AstroRockHunter posted. Cool link as well. However, it's kinda bothersome that Geryl seems to have been right in predicting this flare. Thanks again.

NickW
2010-Oct-28, 04:00 AM
I don't find it bothersome if he did. I get reports of flares 2 to 3 times weekly sent to my iphone. I call it lucky.

silkyjla30
2010-Oct-28, 08:19 PM
are these flares that hit the earth? I didn't think they were this common. Have any of you guys looked at the data in the top link?

NickW
2010-Oct-29, 12:21 AM
Nope, they are not. They are flares that are detected and imaged by SDO. They happen all the time. Now I would be more amazed if there were predictions before a flare took place that was going to hit the earth.

silkyjla30
2010-Oct-29, 01:49 AM
I think that is what was predicted....?

NickW
2010-Oct-29, 01:54 AM
No, the link says the information wasn't made available until after the flare had taken place.

silkyjla30
2010-Oct-29, 02:02 AM
Have we had a flare hit earth other then the 26th in the last 80 days or so?

NickW
2010-Oct-29, 02:14 AM
There have been plenty of flares, and plenty of geomagnetic storms in the last 80 days. So yes, there have been.

silkyjla30
2010-Oct-30, 01:12 AM
On the link it states that they didn't make the info available until after the July 31st prediction, that's when they made the Oct 27th one. Thanks a bunch for the info Nick, I will continue to be bothersome :-D

NickW
2010-Oct-30, 02:31 AM
Researchers had predicted the eruptions to take place around July 31st yet didn’t publish the prediction. Now, they want to make it a point about their next calculated prediction: October 27, 2010.

They made a prediction but chose not to publish the data until after it had happened. Sounds a lot like a "psychic" to me.

silkyjla30
2010-Oct-30, 03:33 AM
True, but that article came about 2 months before that Oct. 26th Solar Flare. Either way, If I'm interpreting the SDO stuff right, we we're hit August 9th with a flare, correct? I'm still trying to learn, so I'm grateful for the continued help.

Tenshu
2010-Oct-30, 05:49 AM
still nothing happened that day, so that prediction turned out to be false.

silkyjla30
2010-Oct-30, 05:55 AM
still nothing happened that day, so that prediction turned out to be false.

I mean, he said the 27th plus or minus one day. That's pretty close. I'm guess what I'm looking for is for someone to look at the data on his webpage and then see when his next predicted date is. Believe me, I don't like the idea of a guy like this being right, so I'm not at all trying to defend him or support him. I just want to see why his model is wrong. I mean, it seems like he;s just doing basic arithmetic by calculating these bits? Is that all that he's doing?

NickW
2010-Oct-30, 06:01 AM
Ok, I don't want to look at the data, mostly because the data is usually cherry picked for best possible outcome. How much has he left out of it? What if he just predicted every other day that a flare would happen?

silkyjla30
2010-Oct-30, 06:06 AM
Not really sure. I mean, as you said, we've been hit from multiple flares on multiple days in between August 1st and October 27th. So I guess that does indeed make him wrong. I'd just like to know if that was mentioned in his so-called data. I know I'm being a pain and I apologize, but I want to know why he's crazy, not just get told that he is.

NickW
2010-Oct-30, 06:11 AM
I didn't say he was crazy, I said he probably made a lucky guess just like I would guess, since I live in Portland, that it will rain tomorrow. It is the rainy season here, so there is a decent possibility that I will be right. We are spinning up to solar maximum right now, when the sun is at its most active, so making a guess on when flares will happen is pretty close to guessing when rain is going to happen where I live.

silkyjla30
2010-Oct-30, 06:16 AM
Sorry Nick, I wasn't implying that you said he was crazy, but many people do. And quite possibly correctly, but I just am trying to find that all of his theories are indeed bonehead ones. I mean, everyone has blown his poleshift theories out of the water, but if there is a chance that he did indeed predict solar flares or CMEs with some accuracy, I'd think that it would warrant atleast a little more investigation?

NickW
2010-Oct-30, 06:19 AM
Ok, where is his data. I checked the site, and I see no data.

silkyjla30
2010-Oct-30, 06:22 AM
At the top link in the OP. You have to scroll down a bit though.

NickW
2010-Oct-30, 06:29 AM
Ok, which link exactly?

silkyjla30
2010-Oct-30, 06:30 AM
http://www.howtosurvive2012.com/htm_night/sun_05.htm

This one right here.

silkyjla30
2010-Oct-30, 06:30 AM
It's in the last big section of the super peak page.

NickW
2010-Oct-30, 06:32 AM
Are you talking about the "The Maya calculated with this theory a super sunspot cycle for 2012... who can find it?" heading?

silkyjla30
2010-Oct-30, 06:34 AM
exactly....

NickW
2010-Oct-30, 06:51 AM
Let me pull a couple of things that don't make sense to me, of course, I could be reading it wrong....



The polar field is taken over by the equatorial field after the following number of days....
Does this really matter? Can I get a huge outburst of energy if I rotate a magnet around another magnet? I think not. I am sure it is far more complex then that, but like I said, it doesn't add up to me.


First point:
0.25087545 x 360 = degrees
= 91,3 degrees

Wrong. Simple math says.....90.315162.



Put this in relation with an observer who travels the length of the mean of the polar and equatorial field in one day.

Now, I am not an expert at really anything, and my google-fu maybe a little bit off, and I have no idea what I am talking about. But doing a search for "sun equatorial field" as research didn't come up with much other then the very site you linked to.



Total length equator field = 4.370.880 km
Mean of Polar field = between 700.000 km and 900.000 km = 800.000 km
4.370.880 + 800.000 = 5.170.880 km
mean =2.585.440 km

Since I have no idea what equator field is, most of this is meaningless to me. Maybe someone else will come along with more knowledge, which would certainly be helpful.



=> This is about equal with the speed of an object that travels 360 days around the sun in one year (plus/ minus)

This is completely meaningless because different object move at different speeds depending on distance.



=> To be corrected when we know the circumference of the polar field more excactly

Most sites on google point to more 2012 conspiracy sites.


Comparisson speed earth

Comparing earth to what?



Speed earth = 29,77 km sec
29,77 x sidereal day = 2.565.000 km/day

Hey! We got one! Or at least close enough.

silkyjla30
2010-Oct-30, 01:40 PM
Thank you for looking at it Nick. It's starting to make a little more sense. But as you pointed out, it's still confusing. I have no idea what the equator field is either.

Gillianren
2010-Oct-30, 06:42 PM
I find that, in general, you should look to the language. If they're using non-standard terms and not defining them, you probably shouldn't take their research very seriously.

Paul Beardsley
2010-Oct-30, 07:15 PM
I find that, in general, you should look to the language. If they're using non-standard terms and not defining them, you probably shouldn't take their research very seriously.

Fantastically well put, Gillian, even by your standards.

Gillianren
2010-Oct-30, 07:17 PM
Thank you!

silkyjla30
2010-Oct-30, 08:15 PM
I'm not disagreeing with you Gillian, but I think much of it is because English is his non-native language. In fact, I think it's his third.

Gillianren
2010-Oct-30, 09:46 PM
Yes, but this isn't mere translation difficulty. This is "but that doesn't seem to mean anything."

Tenshu
2010-Oct-31, 01:22 AM
simple fact is, if nothing happened that day. Then the prediction was false.

NickW
2010-Oct-31, 03:21 AM
To me it seems more like numerology then it does mathematics. He chose numbers based one what would make the rest of his "calculations" work, of course when you do some real math, you will figure out that the number he got isn't even close to real. But as long as it looks good, then we will forget everything else.

Gillianren
2010-Oct-31, 04:11 AM
simple fact is, if nothing happened that day. Then the prediction was false.

Except if the "prediction" was released after the fact, it says nothing about the person's ability to do anything but write a claim that he knew something was going to happen.

Van Rijn
2010-Oct-31, 04:25 AM
Except if the "prediction" was released after the fact, it says nothing about the person's ability to do anything but write a claim that he knew something was going to happen.

Or if it is a trivial prediction. For instance, if someone predicts there will be an earthquake in California on some particular day, that doesn't mean much because small earthquakes are extremely common. If they predict three significant earthquakes with specifics on time, epicenter, and magnitude, then it gets a lot more interesting. That's when it would be very important that they could prove they predicted the events before they happened.

Van Rijn
2010-Oct-31, 04:29 AM
Since I have no idea what equator field is, most of this is meaningless to me. Maybe someone else will come along with more knowledge, which would certainly be helpful.


It doesn't mean much to me, but it's pretty clear he's using the Sun's circumference (about 4,370,000 km) for the "equator field" number.

Tenshu
2010-Oct-31, 06:26 AM
Except if the "prediction" was released after the fact, it says nothing about the person's ability to do anything but write a claim that he knew something was going to happen.

I don't think i understand what your meaning here? Is the person who made the predictions right or wrong?

NickW
2010-Oct-31, 03:43 PM
It doesn't mean much to me, but it's pretty clear he's using the Sun's circumference (about 4,370,000 km) for the "equator field" number.

I figured it was something like that. But it seems to be a non-standard term, and that link didn't define it either. Another nail in the coffin....

NickW
2010-Oct-31, 03:46 PM
I don't think i understand what your meaning here? Is the person who made the predictions right or wrong?

I think she is meaning that you can't really call it a prediction if you write it after the event happened. And since the information was released AFTER the event we have no way of knowing if the information existed BEFORE the event.

Gillianren
2010-Nov-01, 03:54 AM
I think she is meaning that you can't really call it a prediction if you write it after the event happened. And since the information was released AFTER the event we have no way of knowing if the information existed BEFORE the event.

Exactly.

silkyjla30
2010-Nov-03, 12:26 AM
Since y'all were patient in helping me out. I figure I'd give you something to laugh at.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5h6WBt0TluQ&feature=player_embedded

stargazer2
2010-Nov-16, 07:20 AM
I think it would make sense that the cycle would be longer than just 10 or 20 years. I will have to look into this a bit myself.

Tenshu
2010-Nov-16, 09:37 PM
hey guys what's your opinion of the following statement from this youtube video (ftr this isn't a bad video either.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz1PIbx-mrs

99thmonkee said the following.

"The truth is out there and the fact is there is a scientifically valid reason to be concerned. There is no doubt whatsoever that on that date the Earth , Sun and galactic center will align in 3 dimensions for the first time in human history, on the shortest day of the year. This will occur at the peak of the Solar cycle. The Sun will most likely sterilize most of the planet with radiation storms, made worst by a conductive plasma concentration in the galactic plane. "

my first impression of this was language, anyone else wanna comment?

Gillianren
2010-Nov-16, 10:18 PM
We've talked about this before, and your first reaction wasn't bad.

Grashtel
2010-Nov-17, 04:11 AM
hey guys what's your opinion of the following statement from this youtube video (ftr this isn't a bad video either.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz1PIbx-mrs

99thmonkee said the following.

"The truth is out there and the fact is there is a scientifically valid reason to be concerned. There is no doubt whatsoever that on that date the Earth , Sun and galactic center will align in 3 dimensions for the first time in human history, on the shortest day of the year. This will occur at the peak of the Solar cycle. The Sun will most likely sterilize most of the planet with radiation storms, made worst by a conductive plasma concentration in the galactic plane. "

my first impression of this was language, anyone else wanna comment?
I'm guessing that prior to the moderating of your language you were expressing the opinion that the statement you quoted was "male bovine digestive byproduct" or similar sentiments, if that was the case then I would agree with you.

Van Rijn
2010-Nov-17, 05:52 AM
99thmonkee said the following.

"The truth is out there and the fact is there is a scientifically valid reason to be concerned. There is no doubt whatsoever that on that date the Earth , Sun and galactic center will align in 3 dimensions for the first time in human history, on the shortest day of the year.


That's nonsense. An approximate alignment happens twice a year, but the recent "best" alignment was in 1998 (so much for "first time in human history"). And, the scale makes this utterly ridiculous anyway: What matters Earth's position around the sun compared to Jupiter's position around the sun? (A planet that utterly dwarfs Earth.) What matters the position of Earth in its orbit about the sun, compared to the sun's orbit about the galaxy. (The scale of the galaxy utterly dwarfs the scale of the solar system.) Why would Earth's position matter? How could a trivial alignment matter?

Anyway, have you seen the 2012hoax site? They have a page on this issue specifically:

http://www.2012hoax.org/solstice-alignment

and details a lot of these 2012 claims in an easy to find way. Also, you could search BAUT for questions like this (for instance, searching on "galactic alignment site:www.bautforum.com" will turn up similar information on this claim).

Wrangler Wayne
2011-Jan-14, 08:33 PM
:naughty:
I haven't followed your link yet, as I'm presently unable to. However I've read a fair amount of the solar physics literature that attempts to find long-term periodicity in the solar cycles. So far nothing really promising. It takes a whole lot of statistical and metrical know-how to properly investigate such a phenomenon. "Sunspots" alone aren't really enough. The Sun's behavior is more complex than that.

It's my take that since the magnetic fields are lowered during solar minimums, the C14 produced by increased atmospheric cosmic rays show up nicely in the tree rings. So, looking there one finds an excellent map for the past solar cycles that matches our present Landscheidt minimum. It was predicted several years back and is here now. Looking closely at the present sunspots, this cycle may be slightly deeper than the Dalton minimum. NASA has overstated SC24 several times now. The sunspots are not lasting nearly as long as the ones counted before (days vs. weeks) and are weaker. Greatly reduced UV and Xray energy hitting the upper atmosphere is the result. The periodicity for these cycles are complicated but predictable when compared to the alignment of the planets.

chrlzs
2011-Jan-14, 09:22 PM
... The periodicity for these cycles are complicated but predictable when compared to the alignment of the planets.

Welcome, Wayne.

Would you mind citing the evidence that makes the cycles 'predictable when compared to the alignment of the planets'..?

(Added) - and perhaps you could also expound on this:

NASA has overstated SC24 several times now
Are you referring to the NOAA ones that NASA contributes to, or are these specific NASA statements?
(/added)

Thanks.