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 (10:21:43) :
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.
Readers will have noted my typos here: 48 mm should be 0.48 mm, etc, making the whole thing even more doubtful.
Leif Svalgaard (08:20:52) :
The solar wind is a Faraday cage. Its conductivity is higher than copper…….It is like the Sun in surrounded by a copper sphere, except that the shielding is even better.
I do not doubt you are correct. However
……..NASA is starting work on a mission called Solar Probe Plus that will plunge deeply into the sun’s atmosphere. For its finale, Solar Probe Plus should be in position to witness how the sun energizes the most dangerous particles produced in solar storms just at the peak of the sun’s stormy season.
As far as I understand it, the above the Probe will be ‘upwind’ at least at the critical time of next max, does this make radio communications questionable?
Correction
Leif Svalgaard (08:20:52) :
The solar wind is a Faraday cage. Its conductivity is higher than copper….It is like the Sun in surrounded by a copper sphere, except that the shielding is even better.
I do not doubt you are correct. However
……..NASA is starting work on a mission called Solar Probe Plus that will plunge deeply into the sun’s atmosphere. For its finale, Solar Probe Plus should be in position to witness how the sun energizes the most dangerous particles produced in solar storms just at the peak of the sun’s stormy season.
As far as I understand it, the Probe will be ‘upwind’ at least at the critical time of next max, does this make radio communications questionable?
vukcevic (14:17:25) :
does this make radio communications questionable?
No [even though if you get too close to the Sun, the signal is lost in the corona], but I don’t think you were talking about electromagnetic waves [like light and radio waves]. I read things about ‘magnetic loops’ and electric phenomena. So if Jupiter is a source of light, heat, microwaves, and other electromagnetic radiation, all of these will get through, but these would not need to rely on magnetic connection via ‘loops’ or reconnection. To be honest, it is hard to figure out what you claim because you are just too vague. Now, light is another matter, so if you are asserting that Jupiter shines light on the Sun, those rays will, of course reach the upper atmosphere of the Sun. Microwaves and radio waves will also get through, but the energy that they carry is minuscule. I’m reminded of the old anecdote that the total energy of ALL the radio waves and microwaves that have EVER been intercepted by ALL our radio telescopes in ALL the time since observations began, together is less than the kinetic energy of a single falling snow flake.
Because the solar wind is a Faraday cage it has been impossible to observe the interstellar medium, except for the neutral particles and dust. So, if Jupiter sends out Jovian dust, that will get through.
Leif Svalgaard (10:21:43) :
Debunking is easy.
First of all have you read Hung and Desmoulins work I refer to?
Way too many options there, we have already discussed why Mercury is not an option and its about “most aligned” days so we have to align with one of the planets so lets start with J. That leaves us.
S+J+V+E
S+J+V+Eo
S+J+Vo+E
S+J+Vo+Eo
A long way from being debunked.
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]
The justification is that when the results from testing most aligned days is in, that is what appears, at least in Desmoulins work.
To repeat: if Jupiter were the only planet, there would be no solar cycle if solar cycles are caused by planetary tides. Agree?
You choose to ignore the perihelion etc, I wouldnt do that in your hypothetical scenario as its still a resonance (very weak) that may have an effect which cant be ruled out. If we ignore elliptical orbits we would end up with two 1mm tides taking roughly 27 days at equator to complete 1 circuit.
Your ‘plausible’ theory
Its not my theory, Its Hung’s and Desmoulins and by your statements you dont seem to have read them as your not understanding “most aligned days”. If you think you are debunking the theory lets see your reply to Hung.
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/Citations.aspx?id=330
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (16:03:49) :
First of all have you read Hung and Desmoulins work I refer to?
Yes, and I’m not impressed.
That leaves us.
S+J+V+E
S+J+V+Eo
S+J+Vo+E
S+J+Vo+Eo
which is still twice as many as used. No explanation for why.
The justification is that when the results from testing most aligned days is in, that is what appears, at least in Desmoulins work.
That is the unphysical ad-hoc justification, namely that that is required to make it work, with no explanation for why.
You choose to ignore the perihelion etc, I wouldnt do that in your hypothetical scenario as its still a resonance (very weak) that may have an effect which cant be ruled out. If we ignore elliptical orbits we would end up with two 1mm tides taking roughly 27 days at equator to complete 1 circuit.
two tides 0.48 mm which are ALWAYS there. So, now you are invoking the ellipticity of Jupiter’s orbit. The tides at perihelion are 0.55 mm and at aphelion 0.41 mm. If you want to ascribe the effect to that, then you should only use syzygies near Jupiter perihelion and the the whole scheme falls apart [which one(s), if any, in your list was at Jupiter perihelion?]. So, you agree that if Jupiter’s orbit was circular there would not be a solar cycle caused by Jupiter?
And you ignore the fact that Venus aligns with Jupiter more than 30 times per cycle.
your not understanding “most aligned days”.
Because it doesn’t make any sense. [it seems that Hung didn’t get it either, see below – did you see that when you read his paper? if yes, why gloss over it? if no, perhaps more care is in order…]
Its not my theory
sounding a bit wussy, perhaps…
If you think you are debunking the theory lets see your reply to Hung.
First, Hung includes Mercury in his alignments. Perhaps he didn’t understand the ‘most aligned days’ either…
In fact, there are 6 cases involving M and only 4 involving J. Several of his cases are not independent as they have occurred in the same active region. This invalidates his statistics. If I were a referee, I would not have recommended publication. And, BTW, it was never published, except as a ‘technical report’.
Second, if the tidal effects are so effective on the largest flares, they should be even more effective on the smaller flares of which there are thousands. People [including myself] that study flare distributions have not found any clear preferences in the occurrences of smaller flares. There may be a very small tendency for a 154-day period, but even that is not generally accepted. Hung also does not take the perihelion only effect into account, so why should I?
that may have an effect which cant be ruled out
You can’t use ‘may’ and ‘cant’ that way. If it only ‘may’ have an effect, then it ‘may not’ as well, and if it ‘may not’ then it is ruled out.
Clearly, you are in possession of at least a certain amount of critical thought, so it is a [sad] mystery that you have been taken in by the nonsense of the tidal theories, but, hey, there is one born every minute 🙂 right?
Leif Svalgaard (18:00:47) :
Most of your comments dont justify a reply. If its such nonsense I challenge you to reply to Hung.
I and hope your not as rude to him.
merry xmas.
Leif. Forget the 11 yr cycle, there are much bigger things in the wind. I have done some more research this weekend with a major break through. You need to read my report again (remember its wok in progress)
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/archives/58
I have also sent Dr. Hathaway an email, hoping he reads it.
Leif. Forget the 11 yr cycle, there are much bigger things in the wind. I have done some more research this weekend with a major break through. You need to read my report again (remember its work in progress)
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/archives/58
I have also sent Dr. Hathaway an email, hoping he reads it.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (15:23:09) :
Leif. Forget the 11 yr cycle
Does this mean that you have given up on the tides and are now the angular momentum wagon?
Leif Svalgaard (16:03:58) :
Does this mean that you have given up on the tides and are now the angular momentum wagon?
Certainly not, but do think there are more important cycles. Neptune & Uranus
not only control Solar Grand Minima but also the modulation of each cycle…its been staring me in the face…its follows a pattern especially before a grand minimum or episode like SC20..its always a gradual build up of cycle strength which is caused by N+U giving strength(and weakness) as they come together.
Neptune & Uranus perhaps control rotational speed of the sun, which is affected by the Angular Momentum of the Jovian Planets. Neptune and Uranus are the controllers of the 2 main drivers creating Angular Momentum, as simple as that, the sunspot cycles curve follows that control, they can add or take away that Momentum. I need now to prove this with Solar rotational data if I can find it somewhere.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (17:00:06) :
Neptune & Uranus perhaps control rotational speed of the sun
Sigh…
Solar rotational data if I can find it somewhere.
http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf
might give you some pointers. Or you can read off the values from the graph. I think I have steered you there before, and you wanted data from yesterday to investigate a 179 year cycle…
Leif Svalgaard (16:03:58) :
If its not rotation speed it will be something else affecting polar strength….it ties in with your theories but now gives a chance at predicting the polar strength for any future cycle instead of relying on a random number generator.
Leif Svalgaard (16:03:58) :
This should be easy to graph….there is a range of angular momentum from 0 – 4.500E+47 (whatever that is). Pick a centre point of 2.2500E+47 and weight each result away from that centre point (0 is as strong as 4.500e+47). Plot that against a sunspot cycle chart and watch the match up remembering to allow some lag time (maybe 5 yrs) for the Sun to get up or down to speed.
Leif Svalgaard (16:03:58) :
And to make it real nice we could add a weighting factor to the calculated momentum figure to allow for major changes in speed/polarity (wind up/wind down inertia factor) say: if a cycle drops or increases by more than 50% from the previous cycle, add or subtract that percentage from the next cycle and half of that again added to the next cycle…I have done some rough stuff on paper and it looks to align perfectly for the last 10 cycles.
Why do Mars/Earth syzygies have such a warming effect?, I made a forecast of heavy snow falls through this December, http://co2sceptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=85&start=20 knowing that the temperature uplift from this alignment (Dec 5th) after a cold period would bring high levels of precipitation, and this is why the Arctic ice halted too. Gravity cannot be the answer.
Leif Svalgaard (16:03:58) :
Ok here’s the graph with sunspot peaks matched with momentum. No allowance made for inertia or grand minima effects (history shows the cycles stay low for 2 cycles regardless of momentum after minima event).
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/ultimate_graph2.jpg
Leif Svalgaard (17:59:06) :
http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf
might give you some pointers. Or you can read off the values from the graph. I think I have steered you there before, and you wanted data from yesterday to investigate a 179 year cycle…
I am looking for a graph that shows me the change in rotation rate of the sun over 200 yrs so I can match it against the angular momentum vs SSN graph I just posted. Ang mom and SSN already line up so if rotational rates also follow the same pattern I bet solar polar strength graphs would do the same…tying the whole lot up…that would make it beyond doubt.
If its only availble for the last 40 yrs I am sure that would still be enough to show a match…esp with 1970 and now in the mix.
That paper you referred concludes that a slower rotation rate increases activity…slow down/speed up probably doesnt make a diference in the grand scheme, as long as we identify a slowing of activity. Whether more angular momentum speeds up or slows down the rotation rate is guest work on my part.
I could theorize that more angular momentum puts more resistance on the Sun thereby slowing the rotation rate which increases solar activity.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (23:20:15) :
I am looking for a graph that shows me the change in rotation rate of the sun over 200 yrs
The data does not exist for 200 years. The best we can do is the graph [Figure 1] in the paper that shows the rotation rate for each year since 1878. There are only a few sporadic measurements before that.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (23:20:15) :
That paper you referred concludes that a slower rotation rate increases activity…
You have cause and effect backwards. Increasing activity causes a slower rotation. This is because the interior of the Sun [apart from the polar regions] rotates slower than the surface, and solar magnetic fields connect the interior with the surface leading to a drag on the surface slowing it down.
More on solar rotation 1915-1975:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AGUFMSH13A1503B
Leif Svalgaard (08:52:15) :
Thanks Leif, I dont think I am going to find what I am looking for in this area. Plus there is quite a few options: equatorial, differential, internal etc…I would need to get all 3 at min to determine a change I think.
BTW I have updated the momentum graph showing 1700-2070 with predictions.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/ultimate_graph2.jpg
Here’s a graph I made that Leif might be interested in….a SSB torque from 1740-2070.
Amazing likeness to the WSO solar pole strength graphs. 1790, 1830, 1860, 1970 and 2010 of most interest. Torque is neutral when polar strength is weakest?
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/ssbtorque1740-2070.jpg
Just for the record, Piers Corbyn lost his bet on the UK having a white Christmas this year.
Is that light flare a spot coming up there?
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/eit_284/512/