The Sun today
Solar cycle 24 still getting a slow and very delayed start. This is the third one of these (that I know of) this past year.
From SIDC (Solar Influences Data analysis Center) in Belgium: http://sidc.oma.be/products/quieta/
:Issued: 2008 Dec 14 1156 UTC :Product: documentation at http://www.sidc.be/products/quieta #--------------------------------------------------------------------# # From the SIDC (RWC-Belgium): "ALL QUIET" ALERT # #--------------------------------------------------------------------# START OF ALL QUIET ALERT ....................... The SIDC - RWC Belgium expects quiet Space Weather conditions for the next 48 hours or until further notice. This implies that: * the solar X-ray output is expected to remain below C-class level, * the K_p index is expected to remain below 5, * the high-energy proton fluxes are expected to remain below the event threshold. #--------------------------------------------------------------------# # Solar Influences Data analysis Center - RWC Belgium # # Royal Observatory of Belgium # # Fax : 32 (0) 2 373 0 224 # # Tel.: 32 (0) 2 373 0 491 # # # # For more information, see http://www.sidc.be. Please do not reply # # directly to this message, but send comments and suggestions to # # 'sidctech@oma.be'. If you are unable to use that address, use # # 'rvdlinden@spd.aas.org' instead. # # To unsubscribe, visit http://sidc.be/registration/unsub.php # #--------------------------------------------------------------------# (h/t to sunspotter)
anna v (22:27:58) :
This means that the only visible/measurable effects on planets and the sun are tides, and resultant changes in rotation/trajectory due to the exchange of angular momenta and energy. Tides on earth are strong. They are of the order of 30 cm but in the liquid oceans due to the morphology of the bottom can become multiples of that. Tides on the sun, induced by the planets, are of the order of 2mm as we have been informed by Leif.
This part intrigues me Anna, I remember waking up and finding my yacht completely beached after a 3 mtr tide. I would like to see where the 2mm figure comes from and if it varies at times like now, also how plasma is effected by tides especially considering there may be no bottom to the plasma ocean.
E.M.Smith (16:05:49)
I like to explore the rampant speculations about causality since something interesting might be found there (and don’t like it when folks want to spray the whole seed patch with roundup, killing good with bad.)
I agree with Anna v, and enjoy your wise and coherent conclusions.
Jupiter is larger but is closer to the sun, and IIRC the further away and faster bodies have more effect on angular momentum. My suspicion is that all the planetary position observations are just a simple way to see the angular momentum changes, so I’ve just gone with the papers that look at A.M. directly and figured “why look at individual planets when you have the total impact of all the planets and it’s all that matters anyway?”
Totally agree, they all play an important role as a group, but it seems that during certain periods of alignments that role has a marked effect on the Sun causing Grand Minima.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (16:28:16) :
Then another lineup in 1830 during the Dalton, add 179 years and you have what we are experiencing today.
The Dalton was way past in 1830. It is as simple and as real as that.
Leif Svalgaard (19:46:24) :
The Dalton was way past in 1830. It is as simple and as real as that.
Your getting low on arguments….sunspot records and 14C clearly suggest otherwise.
http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/files/2008/11/c14.jpg
But I will repeat it again.
EVERY time over the past nearly 1000 years when Neptune and Uranus come together we have had Grand Minima. It takes around 179 yrs for this to occur. We are there now…I dont think anyone can dispute that?
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (21:03:44) :
“The Dalton was way past in 1830. It is as simple and as real as that.”
sunspot records and 14C clearly suggest otherwise.
They may ‘suggest’ that to you, but the data actually show otherwise:
http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html
This discussion about Uranus and Neptune ‘coming together’ -it’s absolutely definite that they last ”came together’ in the early 1990s.
I have an astrology book with 100 years of planetary positions on the floor with me and dug it out.
Exact conjunction: February 1993 at 19.5 Capricorn; Oct/Nov 1993 at 18.6 – 18.7 Capricorn!
A few years before there was also a ‘triple conjunction’ of Saturn, Uranus and Neptune with two exact conjunctions of two pairs of planets:
Saturn-Uranus conjunction in February 1988 0.5 Capricorn; June 1988 29 Sagittarius; October 1988 28 Sagittarius;
Saturn-Neptune conjunction in March 1989 13.7 Capricorn; June 1989 11 Capricorn; November 1989 10 Capricorn.
If you’re saying that that conjunction (which lasts about 2 years) may have an effect on the solar cycle 15 years hence, that’s a testable hypothesis if you have enough historical data. After all, if sunspot patterns in one cycle can affect the next, why couldn’t a large planet conjunction affect one sunspot cycle (e.g. 22/23) leading to major effects in cycle 24?
Not saying it’s true. Just contributing to the chat.
Rhys Jaggar (09:53:48) :
This discussion about Uranus and Neptune ‘coming together’ -it’s absolutely definite that they last ”came together’ in the early 1990s.
You are spot on Rhys, but there is more (which makes my statement even more specific). They come together every 174 yrs(N+U only) but we have to wait for 2 other planets to align before the “disturbance” takes place. The pattern is N+U+J together with S on the other side of the Sun.
Check the full theory here: http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/archives/58
Here is a solar system view of what I think will be a big date in 2010. The alignment as just outlined plus J+E+V (which some think control the 11 approx sunspot cycle) http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/files/2008/12/2010view.jpg
According to my calculation a new Dalton type minimum could occur within next 20-30 years.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/AmEn.gif (To=1941)
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/extrapolation.gif
This type of minimum could under pressure from rise in interstellar (galactic) magnetic field turn into Maunder type minimum as shown in
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/1600-1700.gif
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (16:47:43) :
. I would like to see where the 2mm figure comes from and if it varies at times like now, also how plasma is effected by tides especially considering there may be no bottom to the plasma ocean.
There is also the minor question of what happens to nuclear reaction rates when the pressure rises under a (slightly) deeper tide layer of very heavy sun… Maybe nothing much, maybe more. I don’t know if there is some nuclear reaction that can almost proceed, if it gets just a bit more pressure, and kicks off a whole lot more energy when it does.
I can see a plausible case for greater spin rate moving mass to a more oblate perimeter and reducing net pressure, thus lowering reaction rates. Is it ‘in the weeds’ at a few dozen decimal place or is it significant? No idea.
Would these fantasy effects balance each other? Result in chaotic effects? Be lost in all the clearly understood mass flows and pressure fluxes? Of the three, I’d vote for ‘no effect, lost in the wee decimal places if there at all’ were I was forced to pick an answer; but I’d love to see evidence to the contrary. (And I’m not willing to say “impossible” without good analysis and reason.)
Wow has this ever wandered far afield
Rather than make any comment on the recent posts…
What’s the spotless count at now?
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (16:47:43) :
I would like to see where the 2mm figure comes from and if it varies at times like now, also how plasma is effected by tides especially considering there may be no bottom to the plasma ocean.
To calculate the height h of a tide:
Ones uses these variables:
G = gravitational constant = 6.672E-11 [E-11 means ten to 11th power]
m = mass of tide producing body
a = distance of tide producing body
R = radius of body on which tides are raised
M = mass of body on which tides are raised
Then calculate:
g = G M / R^2 [acceleration of gravity on surface]
t = G m ( 1/(a-R)^2 – 1/a^2 ) [tidal acceleration]
f = 1 + t / g
h = (sqrt(f) – 1) R
insert for Moon upon Earth:
M = 5.9736E+24 kg
m = 7.3483E+22 kg
R = 6.3781E+6 m
a = 3.84403E+8 m
h = 0.37 m = 370 mm
for Jupiter upon Sun
M = 1.9891E+30 kg
m = 1.8986E+27 kg
R = 6.96E+8 m
a = 7.779E+11 m
h = 0.00048 m = 0.48 mm
for Venus upon Sun
M = 1.9891E+30 kg
m = 4.8685E+24 kg
R = 6.96E+8 m
a = 1.0821E+11 m
h = 0.00046 m = 0.46 mm
for Earth upon Sun
M = 1.9891E+30 kg
m = 5.9736E+24 kg
R = 6.96E+8 m
a = 1.496E+11 m
h = 0.00021 m = 0.21 mm
for Saturn upon Sun
M = 1.9891E+30 kg
m = 5.6846E+26 kg
R = 6.96E+8 m
a = 1.4334E+12 m
h = 0.00002 m = 0.02 mm
for Uranus upon Sun
M = 1.9891E+30 kg
m = 1.8986E+25 kg
R = 6.96E+8 m
a = 2.877E+12 m
h = 0.0000000000 m = 0.00 mm [smaller than Excel can deal with even in double precision]. Perhaps somebody can do the calculation with enough decimal places to get a non-zero result.
For Neptune the tides are smaller still.
All other planets raise much smaller tides. The sum of all tides if they were in sync is about 1.2 mm.
Leif Svalgaard (15:43:31) :
[E-11 means ten to minus 11th power, i.e. divide by 10^11]
for Uranus upon Sun
M = 1.9891E+30 kg
m = 8.681E+25 kg
R = 6.96E+8 m
a = 2.877E+12 m
h = 0.0000000000 m = 0.00 mm
If Neptune and Jupiter are coming together and the combined affect will bring on frigid temps all over the world, look busy, Jesus is coming.
(sarc off)
Thanks Leif, it looks as though Neptune and Uranus doesnt have a significant effect on the Sun regarding tides, but there is a tidal effect from J+E+V that could explain the correlation in Desmoulins graph. So there must be other phenomena involved when it comes to the Neptune/Uranus factor.
nobwainer (18:00:15) :
there is a tidal effect from J+E+V that could explain the correlation in Desmoulins graph.
1.15 mm = 0.04 inches does not look like an effect at all
So there must be other phenomena involved when it comes to the Neptune/Uranus factor.
Or none at all, as the forces are so minute. Maybe Uranus and Neptune are blocking incoming UN-rays from the Orion Spiral Arm?
Leif Svalgaard (15:43:31) :
Then calculate:
g = G M / R^2 [acceleration of gravity on surface]
t = G m ( 1/(a-R)^2 – 1/a^2 ) [tidal acceleration]
f = 1 + t / g
h = (sqrt(f) – 1) R
if we use the fact that t/g is very small, the last two lines can
be rewritten as one:
h = t / g / 2 * R
This expression does not lose precision and one gets for Uranus:
h = 0.00000043 m = 0.00043 mm or 230 times smaller than the thickness of human hair. For Neptune the effect is 750 times smaller than the thickness of human hair.
Correcting a small clerical error [for Mercury], I found:
The sum of all tides if they were in sync is about 1.4 mm. But it is very, very rare that all the planets are lined up on same or opposite side of the Sun.
Perhaps we should make a brave step forward (with a new 2009) and consider negative feedback due to interaction between magnetospheres and -magnetic field lines in a coronal mass ejection forming a “rope” that is thought to thread through the structure.- as quoted at
http://cse.ssl.berkeley.edu/impact/about_luhmannArticle.html
by Dr. Svalgaard’s colleagues from Berkeley (see graphic b).
Dr. Svalgaard, the ejected plasma expands and travels outwards from the Sun, but charged particles (forming electric current) travel along it back to the Sun, thus an opportunity for a feedback.
Leif Svalgaard (22:06:35) :
Correcting a small clerical error [for Mercury], I found
Dont forget Mars….so we have proved a small tide for the planets inside Jupiter hoping your calculations are correct, and no one knows how these tides may affect the Sun. We also have very strong correlations with J+E+V rotations and the sunspot cycle. Until we know more (and we know very little) thats the best we can do until more data is forthcoming. You dont know what a 1mm tide might do?
You never know…those UN-rays might be the mechanism for your solar random number generator.
More on tides:
For Sun upon Earth
M = 5.9736E+24 kg
m = 1.9891E+30 kg
R = 6.3781E+6 m
a = 1.496E+11 m
h = 0.165 m = 165 mm [or 45% of the lunar tide]
If you move the Moon closer, e.g. to only one-tenth its current distance, the tides grow to be disastrous:
For Moon upon Earth:
M = 5.9736E+24 kg
m = 7.3483E+22 kg
R = 6.3781E+6 m
a = 3.84403E+7 m [only one tenth the current distance]
h = 472 m = 1550 feet
nobwainer (03:20:11) :
Dont forget Mars….
0.0000064 m = 0.0064 mm [so can be forgotten]
We also have very strong correlations with J+E+V rotations and the sunspot cycle.
Jupiter 0.48 mm
Venus 0.46 mm
Earth 0.21 mm
Mercury 0.20 mm
Since the tides from Mercury are as large as from Earth, we must have a J+E+V+M correlation. There is no justification for including E but not M.
Leif Svalgaard (06:38:46) :
nobwainer (03:20:11) :
We also have very strong correlations with J+E+V rotations and the sunspot cycle.
Jupiter 0.48 mm
Venus 0.46 mm
Earth 0.21 mm
Mercury 0.20 mm [on average]
Mercury 0.41 mm at perihelion
Since the tides from Mercury are as large as from Earth, we must have a J+E+V+M correlation. There is no justification for including E but not M.
In fact at perihelion, Mercury’s tides are twice as large as those form the Earth, so the dominant contribution should be from J+V+M.
PS:
a handy [approximate] formula is
(h/R) = (m/M) (R/a)^3
This captures the physics [understanding of the tidal generation], so
h = R (m/M) (R/a)^3
Leif Svalgaard (11:11:44)
Since the tides from Mercury are as large as from Earth, we must have a J+E+V+M correlation. There is no justification for including E but not M.
Not so sure about that, both Hung and Desmoulins suggest the orbit of Mercury is too fast to have any effect.
Desmoulins:
“It seems that Mercury and its syzygies with Venus and Jupiter have no effect. Perhaps the quality of a syzygie is also linked to the time it lasts (say the number of days during which the angular sector is smaller than 15 degrees), or to the the time integral of the tidal effect. The impulse of tidal energy looks like a triangle rather than like a Dirac impulse, the time integral of the energy being lower, for the same amplitude, if the basis of the triangle is shorter). Due to the higher angular speed of Mercury, the syzygie time is smaller for syzygies including this planet.”
He also produces a chart with similar tidal figures to yours.
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/jpdesm/sunspots/sun3.html
nobwainer (14:09:04) :
“It seems that Mercury and its syzygies with Venus and Jupiter have no effect.”
Even if some secondary factor comes in [moving too fast etc] there should be ‘some’ effect, perhaps a bit smaller. A much more likely explanation is that tides have nothing to do with anything, being much too small. This is the position taken by almost all scientists that have thought about this.