Comments on: Oddball solar plage area

By: Fluffy Clouds (Tim L)

Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 05:04:23 +0000

the plague area is back at the same place as when this blog started, but the polarity has reversed.
any thoughts?

By: savethesharks

savethesharks — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 05:23:43 +0000

I printed both out and they overlay as being exactly the same.

Thoughts?

By: Geoff Sharp

Geoff Sharp — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 01:19:41 +0000

The Polar strength graph at WSO has been updated, showing a possible change in direction?

http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif

I saved a graph from late last year, is it my imagination or have they revised the Dec 2008 figures?

http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/polar.jpg

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 05:58:38 +0000

Robert Bateman (19:35:07) :
You’ve got to see one of these for yourself.
I’ll come one day and visit you. I have seen such things on the projected 4 foot wide image at Kitt Peak. Impressive.

By: Robert Bateman

Robert Bateman — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 03:35:07 +0000

Leif: I take it from reading that paper that the bright areas I saw today on the Limb are a bad sign for growing activity in this spot. It’s decaying.
The good news is that the detail I observed is much superior to the MDI image. I don’t know why that would be, but there it was. Jagged bright shreds parallel with the limb. You wouldn’t know it from looking at the MDI Magnetogram or Continuum.
You’ve got to see one of these for yourself.

By: Robert Bateman

Robert Bateman — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 03:14:13 +0000

Hale’s Law. I’m reading along and immediately came across the MMF’s. So perhaps the bright areas I saw today in shreds are MMF’s tearing up the magnetic flux. Still more to read, but I’ll keep an eye on these bright shreds to see where they are going.

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 00:14:02 +0000

lgl (12:52:51) :
which means at some latitude the interior and convective zone have the same rotation. Is that where the sunspots are found?
That is where many of the spots [but not all] of a new cycle start to form, later on in the cycle the spots move almost to the equator, so at some point early in the cycle the two latitudes are the same.

By: lgl

lgl — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:52:51 +0000

Leif,
The [synodic] rotation period at low latitudes is about 27 days, in the interior about 28.5 days.
which means at some latitude the interior and convective zone have the same rotation. Is that where the sunspots are found?

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:40:11 +0000

lgl (09:24:49) :
“a rotation profile with much of the radiative interior rotating at or below the surface rate, but with a modest increase in the interior.”
Just what I wanted to see.
but you may be cherry picking, the radiative interior rotates markedly slower than the surface rate. Read it carefully. The [synodic] rotation period at low latitudes is about 27 days, in the interior about 28.5 days.

As far as we know the interior rate does not vary [nothing to make it do so on a timescale of solar cycles or even centuries]. The surface does because the magnetic field of solar activity interferes with the rotation [not the other way around]. It is believed that the differential rotation in the convective zone or near the surface [there is no differential rotation in the interior] is important for the dynamo.

By: lgl

lgl — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:24:49 +0000

Leif,
Thanks, interesting.
“a rotation profile with much of the radiative interior rotating at or below the surface rate, but with a modest increase in the interior.”
Just what I wanted to see. To get a dynamo you need something moving relative to something else, and this opens up for the outer parts moving in one direction and later move in the other direction (relative to the inner parts of course)
and it’s logical to assume that when changing direction the polar field will also reverse. Am I close?
For the “(1) what would make the core do that?” I see all the fun is taking place in that other solar thread so I’ll continue there, but it’s the same old story you will still call nonsense.

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 06:19:26 +0000

Glenn (21:42:22) :
Are your predictions of solar cycle sunspots “rooted in solid physics” or based on a correlation of observations?
Why didn’t you say that in the beginning. Rooted in solid physics, of course, as you well know as I have explained to you in the past. What we predict is the amount of magnetic flux to expect. The process by which such flux concentrates into visible sunspots is not understood [although some people have ideas, e.g. Ken Schatten that I referred you to] and how the spots connect to flux in the interior is also not known, neither is the process the holds the spot together, is a spot one big flux tube or perhaps hundreds of thins ‘strands’ instead, etc, lots of unknowns. To go from magnetic flux to the [arbitrary] sunspot number a calibration point is needed. In our paper we use two such calibration points: cycle 22 and cycle 23.
I hope this helps you in your quest for knowledge, but please do not hesitate to ask further specific questions. I’ll [as is my wont] will do my best to answer them.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 05:42:22 +0000

Leif Svalgaard (20:38:31) :

Glenn (20:15:40) :
Are you saying that this is a *correlation* of observations of multiple events that describes the process that “grows” sunspots?

“I have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you could explain where you want to go with this question or what information you are seeking.”

Well, I’ll rephrase the question.

Are your predictions of solar cycle sunspots “rooted in solid physics” or based on a correlation of observations?

From your example of a correlation I will assume you understand what I mean by correlation in context. Remember you have said that you don’t know what sunspots are or how they are formed. Reply to the above question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_causation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 04:46:41 +0000

Glenn (20:15:40) :
Are you saying that this is a *correlation* of observations of multiple events that describes the process that “grows” sunspots?
I note that you had emphasized *correlation*, so perhaps you are unsure what it means and need clarification. Let me give you an example of a *correlation*: In darkest Africa there is a tribe that claim that beating of tam-tam drums during a solar eclipse will restore the Sun. They claim, also, that the *correlation* has never failed. This is a *correlation* rather than physics.
This link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_(disambiguation) allows you to explore different kinds of *correlation*. Perhaps the one you seek is listed there.

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 04:38:31 +0000

Glenn (20:15:40) : Are you saying that this is a *correlation* of observations of multiple events that describes the process that “grows” sunspots? I have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you could explain where you want to go with this question or what information you are seeking. I can refer you to a book by C. A. Young [The Sun; D. Appleton & Co., New York, 1896] where he describes [or is it 'explains'] what he observed.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 04:15:40 +0000

Leif Svalgaard (19:29:21) :

Glenn (16:36:06) :
A statement that includes “by” certainly is an explanation, not a “description”.

“It seems that you think I understand this better than I would give myself credit for. Thanks for your confidence in me [that is undeserved].”

Think nothing of it. Your predictions of maximum sunspots you claim is based on physics, rather than on correlations. Yet with respect to sunspots, you say that we don’t know what they are or how they occur, but you also claim “spots grow by collecting magnetic flux from the neighborhood”.

So I will ask again:

Are you saying that this is a *correlation* of observations of multiple events that describes the process that “grows” sunspots?