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)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leif Svalgaard (16:00:44) :
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.
Can see a few “wuss” words creeping in there 🙂
vukcevic (02:28:45) :
Perhaps we should make a brave step forward (with a new 2009) and consider negative feedback due to interaction between magnetospheres
This is perhaps a plausible theory for planetary influence but would stand up much stronger if this negative feedback could be measured? Plus if we assume there is feedback how do the planetary positions change or influence this feedback. I noticed you have forecast strong activity for SC24 using “waves” created from past solar cycles instead of using planetary positions.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (21:53:26) :
Can see a few “wuss” words creeping in there
I’m not in that game. Because tidal effects are the same at opposition and at apposition [conjunction] it is a sure sign that the ‘effect’ is not tidal if you have to use opposition in one cycle and apposition in the other. As I said: pseudo-science.
Leif Svalgaard (23:27:47) :
I’m not in that game. Because tidal effects are the same at opposition and at apposition [conjunction] it is a sure sign that the ‘effect’ is not tidal if you have to use opposition in one cycle and apposition in the other. As I said: pseudo-science.
?…The tidal influence of J+E+V+Sun all aligned would certainly be different to J+V+Sun with E opposed (other side of sun). This is the resonance that Hung and Desmoulin describe as the governing factor. That resonance is what matches the sunspot cycles. Check the planetary positions against the table I referred to earlier, it all lines up nicely.
http://math-ed.com/Resources/GIS/Geometry_In_Space/java1/Temp/TLVisPOrbit.html
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/JEVsysygies.jpg
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (23:19:18) :
This is perhaps a plausible theory for planetary influence but would stand up much stronger if this negative feedback could be measured? Plus if we assume there is feedback how do the planetary positions change or influence this feedback. I noticed you have forecast strong activity for SC24 using “waves” created from past solar cycles instead of using planetary positions.
One aspect of feedback (which differentiates it from gravity) is a cumulative effect; i.e. small change in energy in the loop produces over period of time effect well beyond individual packets. Although speed of propagation of particles along the loop may be low electromagnetic field along the loop propagates at the speed of light.
NASA posed a question:
There are many unanswered questions: Why do the portals form every 8 minutes? How do magnetic fields inside the cylinder twist and coil? “We’re doing some heavy thinking about this at the Workshop,” says Sibeck.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm
My answer: it takes 8 min for EM field feedback from the Earth’s magnetosphere to reach the source and temporary shut it down (Sun-Earth distance is 8 light min)
My prediction for SC24 can be estimated from equation
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/AmEn.gif
and for mid 2013 gives about 80, for year later 77.
This equation (rounded off numbers) is based on planetary orbital periods i.e.118 = 4×29.65, 270 = 3x(11.86 + 84), To=1941 year of JSU triple conjunction.
There are two good reasons why the magnetospheric feedback varies over orbital periods for major planets end its effectives is not always coincidental with their conjunctions. I will be, regarding this particular aspect,
updating my website
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk (solar current link) with some new ideas soon.
Happy Christmas and New Year to all.
Correction
vukcevic (01:46:25)
…270 = 3x(11.86 + 84)
should read 290= 3x(11.86 + 84)
3x(11.862 + 84.02) = 287.646 or rounded off to 290 as shown in
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/AmEn.gif
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (00:07:03) :
?…The tidal influence of J+E+V+Sun all aligned would certainly be different to J+V+Sun with E opposed (other side of sun).
No. To see this, think of the Moon: there is a tidal bulge in the ocean facing the Moon, but there is also an identical tidal bulge on the other side of the Earth: http://science.howstuffworks.com/question72.htm
vukcevic (01:46:25) :
Why do the portals form every 8 minutes? […]
My answer: it takes 8 min for EM field feedback
FTEs do not form every 8 minutes. What he is saying is that there are a couple of hundred every day, some even occurring at the same time but at a different place of the magnetopause.
Leif Svalgaard (04:10:05) :
No. To see this, think of the Moon: there is a tidal bulge in the ocean facing the Moon, but there is also an identical tidal bulge on the other side of the Earth: http://science.howstuffworks.com/question72.htm
No..think of what would happen if we had another moon on the opposite side. No tides, so there we have our pulse (resonance). Next?
Leif Svalgaard (04:10:05) :
btw…did you check out my alignment dates on the solar system viewer?
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (05:29:14) :
“there is a tidal bulge in the ocean facing the Moon, but there is also an identical tidal bulge on the other side of the Earth”
No..think of what would happen if we had another moon on the opposite side. No tides, so there we have our pulse (resonance).
In that case the tides would be twice as high. We don’t have another moon, but we have a Sun that also produces tides (46% of those caused by the Moon) and when the tides from the Sun and the Moon combine we get the so-called Spring tides and when the Sun is 90 degrees from the Moon we get Neap tides that are smaller. Since antiquity, people have noticed that oceans exhibit a much greater tidal range around the time of the full and new Moon. This is when the Moon and Sun are either together in the sky or are on opposite sides of the sky. It is a bit disconcerting that I need to point this out [twice] in this day and age, but apparently science literacy is somewhat on a decline. Perhaps Wikipedia can be of help here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide
Leif Svalgaard (04:19:49) :
FTEs do not form every 8 minutes.
Dr. Svalgaard
Thanks for the note.
I was quoting directly from NASA’s website:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm
……….. Approximately every eight minutes, the two fields briefly merge or “reconnect,” forming a portal through which particles can flow. The portal takes the form of a magnetic cylinder about as wide as Earth.
And again:
………. There are many unanswered questions: Why do the portals form every 8 minutes? How do magnetic fields inside the cylinder twist and coil? “We’re doing some heavy thinking about this at the Workshop,” says Sibeck.
If NASA has made mistake on their website I am happy to accept that.
What he is saying is that there are a couple of hundred every day, some even occurring at the same time but at a different place of the magnetopause.
I have no problem with that. It is not impossible for a same magnetic loop to make multiple reconnections along the magnetosphere’s tail. There are also fast and slow particle streams.
Considering
– If 8min is accurate (?)
– It has been known for more than a 100 years that more sunspots are observed to be born in the eastern hemisphere [or even on the backside] than on the western hemisphere…. (I suspect your preference for this is being an illusion)
– my “discovery” of 400 day subcycle
there would be a reasonable amount of evidence to start seriously considering possibility of a magnetospheric feedback.
I am happy for you to challenge my amateurish excursions, it encourages me to keep going. I would be even happier, if a certain Dr. by using an obscure viking pseudonym, would play a devil’s advocate, by using his vast experience and detailed knowledge, dig out facts in favour of the “feedback hypothesis”. A forlorn hope.
Happy Christmas.
vukcevic (09:02:12) :
“FTEs do not form every 8 minutes.”
If NASA has made mistake on their website I am happy to accept that.
NASA did not make a mistake. You interpreted their wording incorrectly. The 8 minutes is the average time between FTEs, this means that sometimes they are 4 minutes apart, sometimes 12, sometimes something else. In the course of the day they observe about 180 FTEs, so 24 hours * 60 minutes / 180 FTEs = 8 minutes per FTE. This is very different from saying that FTEs follow each other 8 minutes apart. Another way of saying this that the number of FTEs per unit of time is constant independent of solar distance [as the North/South switches of the IMF is carried outwards by the wind], so you will see about the same number go by in a hour, no matter where you are. Since Jupiter is much bigger than the Earth, it should intercept more than 100 times more N-S switches, i.e. see an FTE on average every 5 seconds [or less].
– If 8min is accurate (?)
Yes and no. On average, yes, as a clockwork, no, as they can be arbitrarily close.
– It has been known for more than a 100 years that more sunspots are observed to be born in the eastern hemisphere [or even on the backside] than on the western hemisphere…. (I suspect your preference for this is being an illusion)
Not ‘illusion’, but selection effect
– my “discovery” of 400 day subcycle
There is an annual variation of geomagnetic activity. This is due to the fact that we are closer to the Sun in January and hence see a stronger IMF and solar wind. This variation accounts for most of the variation you see and will for extended periods be in phase with your reference curve and at other times be out of phase [or in anti-phase]. Because your reference period is 1/11 of a year longer than a year, this in/out phase will show an 11-year variation.
There can be no feedback as the solar wind is supersonic, in the sense that it flows out 11 times faster than any electric or magnetic signal can flow ‘upwind’. In addition, the conductivity of the solar wind is so high [practically infinite] that the magnetic field is ‘frozen’ in, i.e. is compelled to move with the plasma, i.e. outwards. That is why there is a measurable interplanetary magnetic field in the first place: it is the Sun’s field ‘dragged’ along by the outflow.
Re: 8 min etc.
– Average 8 min is no problem for a feedback. Longer than 8 min portal, feedback not strong enough to shut down the source instantly, shorter than 8 min, source may ‘reignite’ following pulsating feedback. (If 8 min indeed is average one would be tempted to conclude that those around 8 min are the most numerous, but would be interesting to see a 24h breakdown if such does exists).
– Jupiter’s case. To be able to sense the Jupiter’s magnetosphere response, Earth would have to be within the same magnetic loop (rope, portal), which would mean loop being at least 4AU wide, I think that is unrealistic. These could be as frequent as you suggest and they may possibly be found hidden within Jupiter’s radio signal pulsations.
– Eastern hemisphere anomaly be it real, ‘illusion’ or selection effect either it exists or not. If it does not exists that is fine. There are more anomalies which can be linked to the (magnetospheric) planetary effect:
Activity is higher in the second half of even-numbered solar cycles and in the first half of oddnumbered cycles. My periodicity equation Y1 (see http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/ solar current link) uses rectified (abs values) form, but in its un-rectified form it distinguishes between even and odd cycles . Also I have come across following: About 2 years after sunspot maximum, Largest peak compound of transient and recurrent magnetic activity. Descending phase of the solar cycles are largely recurrent.
– 400 day subcycle “discovery”. I was not referring to IHV magnetic precursor (I agree there with you) but to an apparent subcycle contained within 11 year Sunspot cycle as described in http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/ solar subcycle link. I am absolutely certain that you would under no circumstances (at least not for time time being) attribute this subcycle to the fact that we are closer to the Sun in January or anything else related to Earth.
– Your last paragraph I have no problem with. Solar wind moves forward with a particular speed, so do particles within a magnetic loop. Particles moving within the loop , regarles whether they arrive back to the source or not (as shown at illustration b at http://cse.ssl.berkeley.edu/impact/about_luhmannArticle.html ) constitute an electric current, its associated electromagnetic field (not the ‘frozen’ magnetic field of the solar wind) propagates along the loop at speed of light back to the source hence possibility of feedback from a loading by the impacted magnetosphere. Here I would use, not entirely accurate, but a useful analogy of a DC current through a wire. Outside the wire there is fixed magnetic field, while electrons (if you wish) move within at limited speed, but associated electromagnetic field inside the wire propagates at ‘near’ speed of light and would ‘instantly’ reflect change in a load onto the generator.
vukcevic (13:54:41) :
but associated electromagnetic field inside the wire propagates at ‘near’ speed of light and would ‘instantly’ reflect change in a load onto the generator.
I don’t think we communicate at all. There cannot be any electric or magnetic feedback traveling upwind. The solar wind plasma acts as a Faraday cage. It is like the Sun in surrounded by a copper sphere, except that the shielding is even better.
And there can easily be a yearly [or earth-related] effect on the sunspot number, because the count depends on the seeing, which depends on the weather, etc. Not, that there is a large effect, but it is not impossible at all.
Leif Svalgaard (14:03:51) :
And there can easily be a yearly [or earth-related] effect on the sunspot number, because the count depends on the seeing, which depends on the weather, etc. Not, that there is a large effect, but it is not impossible at all.
For an estimate of subcycle intensity see http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/SC17-SC23.gif (blue line, amplitude x 2, pp about 30 which is about 20% of solar max for SC17, in SC23 caused prominent dip or a double max of even greater magnitude).
Also visible in magnetograph http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/Field.gif
I don’t think we communicate at all.
Agreed.
Leif Svalgaard (14:03:51) :
vukcevic (13:54:41) :
“but associated electromagnetic field inside the wire propagates at ‘near’ speed of light and would ‘instantly’ reflect change in a load onto the generator”..
I don’t think we communicate at all. There cannot be any electric or magnetic feedback traveling upwind. The solar wind plasma acts as a Faraday cage. It is like the Sun in surrounded by a copper sphere, except that the shielding is even better
Do you know what a Faraday cage is?.
Leif Svalgaard (08:12:43) :
In that case the tides would be twice as high
Ok…see your point, and the fact that the Sun is not a solid body would also make no difference because of the standard tidal gravitation force acting, meaning that matter/plasma would not be drawn through the centre of the Sun if we go by fig. 5 at wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force
So for 2 or more bodies rotating around the Sun, to get a tidal effect it would need to be a neap tide alignment vs a spring tide alignment. Desmoulins study does seem to favour “spring tide” alignments if i understand it and only looks at alignments within 15 deg…so we have sunspot peaks lining up with both J+E+V+Sun and J+V+Sun and E opposing (the strongest tidal effect witnessed in both line ups as you say) and as the sysygy moves to the “neap tide” positions the resonance and weaker sunspot activity occur. I had it wrong thinking the 2 sysygies created the resonance where actually its between those sysygies that the weakened beat happens, thanks for setting me straight. Hung takes a different view and looks at alignments that can include up to 90 deg but get a lower ranking.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (21:34:01) :
lining up with both J+E+V+Sun and J+V+Sun and E opposing
and with V opposing and with J opposing and with M opposing and not opposing, etc. Lots of extra peaks, all equally strong, so you have many constellations to cherry pick from and can match anything. As I said, this is pseudo-science at its finest.
Leif Svalgaard (18:58:13) :
Do you know what a Faraday cage is?.
Ah, that brings memories. It is thanks to that wire contraption, rather then my and mine colleagues practical skills, that no one got electrocuted while as young students some 40+ years ago, we were reproducing (Nicola) Tesla’s coil experiment, in a basement under a lecture theatre, were some years earlier Milutin Milankovic conduncted his classes.
As fate would have it, some time after, for many a year, at a lunch break, I would stroll to north side of the Waterloo bridge, down to Savoy place, walk into that small unassuming but elegant red brick building
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Michael_Faraday_statue_AB.jpg/400px-
where many of the Faraday exhibits were kept, as well as the occasional IEE society (being member of) lectures were held.
I was somewhat disappointed that you did not found some time to take look at http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/ solar subcycle link. Perhaps in the New Year, for which I wish you (and your family) all the best.
Leif Svalgaard (22:29:50) :
and with V opposing and with J opposing and with M opposing and not opposing, etc. Lots of extra peaks, all equally strong, so you have many constellations to cherry pick from and can match anything. As I said, this is pseudo-science at its finest.
Not that many really…only 3 planets are capable, but it still stands as a very plausible theory which you have been unable to debunk. Hung is very open to feedback on his paper, why dont you send him a paper on your thoughts?
vukcevic (03:27:29) :
“Do you know what a Faraday cage is?.”
Ah, that brings memories. It is thanks to that wire contraption, rather then my and mine colleagues practical skills, that no one got electrocuted while as young students some 40+ years ago, we were reproducing (Nicola) Tesla’s coil experiment, in a basement under a lecture theatre, were some years earlier Milutin Milankovic conduncted his classes.
The solar wind is a Faraday cage. Its conductivity is higher than copper.
REPLY: We all (well most of us) drive Faraday cages, which is why the safest place to be during a lightning storm is your car, tornadoes are another matter, ditch the car for a ditch or culvert. – Anthony
Thanks for the advice Anthony. Long before Faraday, selected few (in Europe at least) had their own personal ‘made to measure’.
http://wemma.org.uk/img/HRVIIIArmour.jpg
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (04:03:14) :
Not that many really…only 3 planets are capable,
4 planets. The combinations are [Xo means planet X opposing]
S+J+V+M+E
S+J+V+M+Eo
S+J+V+Mo+E
S+J+V+Mo+Eo
S+J+Vo+M+E
S+J+Vo+M+Eo
S+J+Vo+Mo+E
S+J+Vo+Mo+Eo
S+Jo+V+M+E
S+Jo+V+M+Eo
S+Jo+V+Mo+E
S+Jo+V+Mo+Eo
S+Jo+Vo+M+E
S+Jo+Vo+M+Eo
S+Jo+Vo+Mo+E
S+Jo+Vo+Mo+Eo
all of these will have the same effect. The theory is automatically debunked [i.e. no further debunking needed] if one has to cherry pick just one or two combinations and give no reason why those have effect and the rest not. If you want to argue that M and Mo should be excluded, we are still left with
S+J+V+E
S+J+V+Eo
S+J+Vo+E
S+J+Vo+Eo
S+Jo+V+E
S+Jo+V+Eo
S+Jo+Vo+E
S+Jo+Vo+Eo
Since M and Mo are as strong as E and Eo on average and as strong as V and Vo near perihelion of M, it seems hard to exclude M and Mo. In addition, there is no justification for using V for even cycles and Vo for odd cycles [except that it ‘fits better’, which is not physical]. It should be clear that no further debunking is needed.
But there is more. Consider a system containing only S and J, then J will cause a constant tide on S at all times, just like the tides caused by the Moon on the Earth are always there. This will clearly not cause a solar cycle as the tide is always present and does not vary with a 11.86 year period [we ignore the small eccentricity of Jupiter’s orbit]. So, the solar cycle is NOT caused by Jupiter. And Jupiter’s ever-present tide can thus be ignored. This is an important point, so I would like you to acknowledge that you have understood that. To repeat: if Jupiter were the only planet, there would be no solar cycle if solar cycles are caused by planetary tides. Agree?
The next-largest tides are caused by Venus. The neap tides with respect to Jupiter [at +/-90 degrees] will occur every 112 days, so there should be a 122 day cycle. The 10 extra days is because Jupiter has moved a bit during the 112 days a half-orbit of Venus takes. Still no solar cycle. And so on with all the other alignments. It doesn’t matter when the other planets align with Jupiter, because Jupiter’s tide is always there, and the Sun rotates so fast [27 days] compared to planetary movements that the tidal bulge sweeps over the Sun many times, e.g. 13 times per year, or 159 times during a Jovian year.
So, a planet aligning with Jupiter does not cause the solar cycle either: Venus does that more than 30 times during a normal 11-year solar cycle. Your ‘plausible’ theory now posits that in spite of the constant 48 mm Jupiter tide, and the 46 mm Venus tide [hitting ~30 times per cycle] having no effect on the cycle, the 21 mm Earth tide [when it coincides with the non-effective 48+46 mm J+V tides] is the one causing the solar cycle, regardless of the fact that the 41 mm Mercury-perihelion tide has no effect.
Debunking is easy.
Leif Svalgaard (08:20:52) :
The solar wind is a Faraday cage. Its conductivity is higher than copper.
Since the solar wind is a Faraday cage, external electric and changing magnetic fields propagating at ‘near’ light speed can have no effect on the Sun. The only way you can maintain currents in space is to have bodily transfer of particles, and that is hard to do upwind.