The last time we saw would could have been a cycle 24 sunspot, was on January 20th, 2009, but it was an oddball, and not clearly part of cycle 23 or 24. Spaceweather.com wrote that day:
A new sunspot [1011] is emerging inside the circle region–and it is a strange one. The low latitude of the spot suggests it is a member of old Solar Cycle 23, yet the magnetic polarity of the spot is ambiguous, identifying it with neither old Solar Cycle 23 nor new Solar Cycle 24. Stay tuned for updates as the sunspot grows.
The last time we had a true cycle 24 spot was on January 10th thru the 13th, with sunspot 1010, which had both the correct polarity and a high latitude characteristic of a cycle 24 spot. But since then no other cycle 24 spots have emerged.
It has been slow going for cycle 24.
We did have a single cycle 23 spot in February as you can see from the SWPC sunspots data, but it has been dead quiet on all other solar activity indices:
:Product: Daily Solar Data DSD.txt :Issued: 0225 UT 22 Feb 2009 # # Prepared by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, Space Weather Prediction Center # Please send comments and suggestions to SWPC.Webmaster@noaa.gov # # Last 30 Days Daily Solar Data # # Sunspot Stanford GOES10 # Radio SESC Area Solar X-Ray ------ Flares ------ # Flux Sunspot 10E-6 New Mean Bkgd X-Ray Optical # Date 10.7cm Number Hemis. Regions Field Flux C M X S 1 2 3 #--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2009 01 23 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 01 24 69 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 01 25 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 01 26 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 01 27 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 01 28 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 01 29 69 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 01 30 69 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 01 31 69 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 01 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 02 69 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 03 69 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 04 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 05 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 06 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 07 71 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 08 71 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 09 71 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 10 68 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 11 70 11 10 1 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 12 70 11 10 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 13 70 11 10 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 14 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 15 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 16 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 17 71 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 18 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 19 69 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 20 69 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 21 71 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ric Werme (06:01:59) :
On PDO vs. solar drivers, why not both?
Let’s see if I can articulate some musings on this.
1) Ignore, for now, the long secular trend in temperature since the mid 19th Century. There is still clear evidence of oscillations in climate on decadal and bidecadal time scales. (I’ll return to multidecadal later.) Where do these oscillations come from?
2) There are only two possible exogenous sources for such persistent natural climate variability on these time scales: the solar cycle, and the lunar nodal cycle. There is a voluminous literature arguing for one or the other, or for some combination of the two.
3) I do not think Leif’s objections against a role for solar are strong here. We’re not talking about the rate of change in temperature so much as changes in the rate of change. These changes are well within the realm of attribution to solar. To demonstrate, here are a couple of illustrations of the kinds of changes I’m talking about:
http://s5.tinypic.com/t69jip.jpg
http://s5.tinypic.com/3584ccz.jpg
Shown are roughly decadal oscillations in mean temperatures for selected regions of the US (part of a larger study I’m working on). Note that the scale for the left axis is in degrees centigrade (C), so that these oscillations are of an order of magnitude of ±0.02°C. In this thread
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/11/finally-a-sunspot-but-it-is-a-cycle-23-spot/
Leif says that variations in TSI can only account for 0.072K change in temperature “which is not worth writing home about.” I disagree. Here we see evidence of roughly decadal oscillations in mean temperature changes on just this order of magnitude.
4) Then, in addition to, or on top of, these decadal and bidecadal variations, we have longer scale, multidecadal ocean oscillations such as the PDO and variations in NAO.
5) Then factor multidecadal cycles in atmospheric trends (zonal versus meridional). In these last two, I think we do have factors accounting for much of the long term, multidecadal, trends in temperature.
6) And yet, out of the “noise” of all this natural climate variability we’re supposed to be able to divine a signal clearly attributable to a rising trend in a trace greenhouse gas?
“We’re not talking about the rate of change in temperature so much as changes in the rate of change.”
Interesting. When thinking about a differential equation for “global temp”(which I quickly leave off with a headache), clearly the first term, change in TSI, is uninteresting. Terms presenting the integral of TSI are mind-bending.
Geoff Sharp, congratulations, your line of enquiry looks very promising.
Yes humor/irony is what I was going for there. 🙂 For those that didn’t catch it the date on the article is 3/6/2006
G
And the biggest doozy is that 3 years later the guy is still playing with the same failed model. Add obsession to humor/irony. He still doesn’t get it:
His model went one way and the Sun went the opposite way, leaving him in his own dust.
Others may have already posted this link, but a current sunspot plot and recent failed predictions for SC 24 is here
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/
Lief, can you provide pointers to papers estimating the amount of energy being dumped into the Earth by the Sun due to the Solar wind and due to the magnetic flux changes.
I noticed an article last year that mentioned the surprisingly large amounts of energy involvde in the magentic tubular conenctions with the Sun adn Earth breaking and cracking. But I haven’t read the paper.
Robert Bateman (12:11:05) :
Enjoy the 3rd day of blank Magnetogram.
Enjoy the 40th day since the last SC24 spot.
Be thankful that their prediction of frying and inundated coastlines ain’t happening.
Something else is.
Thanks Robert, I find your posts here and at SC24 inspiring and thought provoking. There is something new happening as we are watching.
Second.
A big La Nina won’t make them admit anything either. A weak solar cycle that leads to decades of cooling will.
No. It won’t.
Absent the truth, people believe what they are told. As long as those in positions of power or influence – who have ulterior motives – keep claiming “global warming,” people will believe them. As a nation/world, we have become scientifically illiterate and intellectually lazy.
You are welcome, Carsten.
It’s been a real battle trying to hold back my growing cynicism.
Sometimes I don’t do so well.
I have one foot in real life and the other in layman’s science.
Will they chuck thier AGW model when a year without a summer happens?
How about rapidly advancing glaciers that clean whole towns in the Swiss Alps off?
Lake Superior freezing over solid?
All that has happened before, and we have seen how they think that is normal.
I believe you are right, Mark, they won’t admit anything.
I do believe that people in general are fast becoming skeptical. I can hear it in their voices when I talk to them.
Will it be enough to turn the tide?
PT Barnum was right.
I thought a group of monks stopped that Swiss glacier.
No, control of CO2 emissions is the ultimate power tool.
They will never give it up.
Rick Werme: You wrote, “The way things are going the AMO may go negative the same year that sunspots fade from view.”
The AMO appears to have reached its peak in 2004/2005. Sometime in that timeframe. It’ll take about 10 to 11 years for the AMO to reach negative numbers again if it continues to follow a roughly 60-year cycle.
You also wrote, “I used to favor solar drivers, but the success of PDO(+AMO(+TSI)) correlations and Leif’s both-feet-on-the-ground science have me leaning toward PDO first.”
If the PDO is in fact a residual of ENSO, or, better phrased, if the PDO is in fact “dependent on ENSO on all timescales” (refer to Newman et al link that follows), I’d be leaning toward ENSO as the primary driver. Keep in mind that the PDO is not a measure of SST anomalies; it is a statistically manufactured index calculated from SST anomalies.
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo/Newmanetal2003.pdf
Regards
If these Bulgarian results are serious (and I wonder a bit about the shape of their sunspot numbers around 2000), then Jenkins et al. 2008 may provide a an explanation (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.3283v1).
The paper is entitled “Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance”. The essence is, that the nuclear decay rate on earth varies yearly by about 0.1%. The authors suggest:
However, also in the highly significant German PTB timeseries, there is phase shift of about 90° with respect to perigee/apogee, suggesting the observed effect is not exactly, or not only a function of distance, but maybe velocity or even direction.
Cooper, who recently examined the Cassini spacecraft’s RTG power decay rate (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.4248) excluded a dependency of the exponential decay law on Cassini’s distance to sun, at least to an efffect 350 times smaller than stated by Jenkins et al.
So the PTB and the much less precise results from BNL may still reflect a banality, a seasonal effects. But just if not: Given that about 50% of geothermic energy is provided by nuclear decay, I would like to know how to estimate the thermal effect of a 0.1% amplitude modulation of the nuclear decay rate on a Bulgarian cave (the thermal effect could be larger, as the radioactive series reactions have to be considered). Finally, because mining is being done since so long time, there must be plenty of geophysical data, waiting to corrobate or dispute the Bulgarian findings,
Robert Wood (15:38:42) :
can you provide pointers to papers estimating the amount of energy being dumped into the Earth by the Sun due to the Solar wind and due to the magnetic flux changes.
This is a straightforward engineering-type calculation. It goes like this:
The electromotive force E = W x Bn, supplied by the solar wind to the magnetospheric dynamo is of the order E = W Bn, where W is the solar wind speed. The normal component Bn of the magnetic field connecting the magnetospheric tail and the interplanetary magnetic field can be estimated by assuming that the magnetic flux Mp from the polar cap is connected to the interplanetary field along the surface AT of the tail. With a polar cap radius rp and a polar cap field Bp, we get Mp = pi rp^2 Bp. Taking the length of the tail as St, we have AT = pi RT ST, where RT is the radius of the tail. Hence
Bn = Mp/AT = rp^2 Bp / (RT ST)
with rp = 15 degrees = 1.7 x 10^6 m, BP = 55,000 nT = 0.55 x 10)-4_ Wb/m2, RT = 20 RE = 1.3 x 10^8 m, and ST = 500 RE = 3.2 x 10^9 m, we get Bn = 3.7 x 1-(-10) Wb/m2 = 0.37 nT. One Earth radius RE is 6.38 x 10^6 m. Taking the solar wind speed as W = 420 km/s = 4.2 x 10^5 m/s , we find E = 1.6 x 10)-4) V/m. [V=volt].
The total potential difference across the tail then becomes P = E pi RT = 6.4 x 10^4 V = 64 kV, and the electric field in the polar cap ionosphere is Ei = P/(2 rp) = 20 x 10^(-3) V/m = 20 mV/m.
We can also write P = W Bn pi RT = W Mp pi RT / AT = W Mp/ST.
The field steength in the near earth tail [before too much flux has leaked out] can be estimated to be
BT = Mp/(1/2 pi RT^2) = 2 Bp (rp^2/RT^2) = 19 x 10^(-9) Wb/m2 = 19 nT.
The typical quiet-time convection velocity over the polar cap can be obtained from vc = E x B/B^2 as vc = Ei / Bp = 360 m/s.
The time to convect the foor-points of the tail field lines across the polar cap is now tc = 2 rp / vc = 9250 s = 2.6 hours.
In that time the interplanetary end of the field line moves W tc which then is also an estimate of the length of the tail: ST = W tc = W 2 rp Bp / Ei = 3.8 x 10^9 m = 600 RE.
For a line current [auroral electrojet) at height h over the ground to give a magnetic disturbance [called a ‘substorm’] effect of BA = 1000 nT = 10^(-6) Wb/m2 the current strength must be of order iA = 2 pi h BA / μ0 [ μ0 is the magnetic constant defined as 4pi x 10-7 H·m-1]. Taking h = 110 km = 1.1 x 10^5 m, we get iA = 550,000 ampere. If NT is the current density of the tail current estimated by treating each half of the tail as a solenoid: NT = BT/μ0, we find that the extent of the tail current disruption is of order of kd = iA/ NT = 3.7 x 10^7 m = 6 RE.
Assuming that the energy in this part of the tail was stored as magnetic energy, we get for this Ud = BT^2/2μ0 x volume = BT^2 / 2μ0 * pi RT^2 * kd /2 = BT pi RT^2 iA / 4. But we have also Ud = 1/2 L iA^2 where L is the inductance of the circuit, which then is L = μ0 BT/BA * RT/4h = 890 henry.
The resistance, R, in the circuit is essentially that of the ionosphere: R = P/iA = 0.12 ohm, so the time constant of the circuit can be estimated as t = L/R = 7.4 x 10^3 s = 2 hours.
This shows that the magnetotail certainly contains enough energy to drive a substorm lasting, say, 1 hour. The energy dissipated in the ionosphere alone by the substorm current i then of order e = iA * P = 3.5 x 10^10 W [watt]. Taking into account also the current in the southern hemisphere we get a total rate at which work is being done of the order of 10^11 W. If the substorm lasts for one hour, the total amount of energy dissipated in the currents is then about 3 x 1014 J [joule]. The additional energy deposited in the auroral substorm by the precipitating electrons can be estimated from the auroral luminescence or from direct measurement by polar orbiting satellites is about 2 x 10^14 J. Therefore the total substorm energy dissipation amounts to about 5 x 10^14 J, corresponding to an earthquake of magnitude 6.7 on the Richter Scale.
We can estimate the total magnetotail current jT by setting the average magnetic field in the tail to BT/2. We do this becasue the field decreases down the tail as more and more field lines are conected to the solar wind and leak out of the tail. Hence, the average current density: avgNT = 1/2 NT = BT/2μ0, so that jT = j northern + j souther = 2 ST/avgNT = ST BT/ μ0 = 5 x 10^7 ampere. The total amount of energy drawn from the solar wind by the current jT over a potential difference P is then PS = jT P = 3 x 10^12 W. The enrgy deposited in a 1-hour substorm corresponds to about 2 minutes of solar wind input. We see that substorms are not major collapses of the magnetosphere, but rather minor internal adjustments to changing external conditions.
The kinetic energy of the solar wind falling on the magnetosphere is essentially K = pi RT^2 W * (1/2 n mp W^2) where mp = 1.67 x 10(-27) kg is the proton mass and n = 5 protons / cm^3 = 5 x 10^6 /m3 is the number density. We find K = 1.6 x 10^13 W, which is 5 times the energy expended in the magnetotail. So, from energy considerations, the solar wind thus seems fully capable to drive the magnetospheric dynamo and maintaining the magnetosphere.
——-
One an play with different input parameters and see what difference it makes. That the energy involved is substantial [although minuscule compared to direct solar irradiance] is due the the fact that the electric forces are 10^40 times as strong as the gravitational forces. We get a lot of joules out of those impacting BigMacs w/Fries. Of course, per square meter it ain’t so much.
Oh yes, quite the straightforward engineering calculation.
It is a pleasure watching Dr. S. do the work he loves and knows well.
Archonix (09:11:36) :
Now the thing about an oscillator s, given the right circumstances a very small amount of energy can be kept inside the system for a very, very long time. The classic example is a weight on a spring. It only takes a small amount of energy to get it going and once it’s going it will continue to move of its own accord. That same weight can be induced to start moving through a purely random event.
Thanks for the demonstration link.
I have been arguing in low key, against Leif’s assumption that the sun changes are too small to have an effect on climate, suggesting that the seasonal changes of the sun energy on the earth, the beat, are not small. The seasonal is of the order of 7% and the day/night of 100 percent, and it is a metronome beat. ).1% change in the energy of the beat sounds like what you are describing above.
Except that I would put my money on chaotic type of models, a la Tsonis et al, since there are so many other equations entering the problem ( hydrodynamics, heat transfer, radiation, etc etc)
anna v (22:20:08) :
I have been arguing in low key, against Leif’s assumption that the sun changes are too small to have an effect on climate, suggesting that the seasonal changes of the sun energy on the earth, the beat, are not small.
They are indeed large:
http://www.leif.org/research/Erl76.png
that shows the seasonal changes [better to say, the annual changes – seasons are reversed in the Southern Hemisphere].
Shown are twelve curves, one for each year in the last solar cycle. They all show the 7% annual change [unchanged from year to year]. The little wiggles on the curve are solar activity-related changes in TSI. As you can see, they are completely swamped by the annual change.
Sure, who can say not.
What I am saying is that maybe the beat of the seasonal changes on the oceans which must be what is setting up the PDOs ENSOs and what not acronyms, might be modulated way out of the energy inputed by the longer beat of change in the sun insolation, even if it is so tiny, as happens with the oscillation example.
as Dishman (13:49:14) : says unusual amplifications may result.:
“The interesting thing is that introducing an outside force to this system will only have a temporary effect.”
This is true if the outside force is constant or otherwise out of sync with the oscillator. If the outside force is itself an oscillator with a frequency close to the frequency of the system, the amplification can be huge. “Tacoma Narrows” is a classic example.
I am just putting this factor on the table, though as I said, my money is on chaotic based models.
Is there any particular reason that chaos can’t overlie an amplified beat? In other words, might you be right with both bets, anna?
=========================================
Very striking quote from within the referenced article:
“Also noted is the much longer length of cycle 23 (96- ?) compared to cycle 22 (86-96). So here we see two direct links to the highly possible effect from Angular Momentum created by the Gas Giants, increased rotation rate and the stretching of the cycle length as the Sun takes its abnormal path every 172 years.”
—
A question then, if I may address Lief directly:
The sun is a plasma spherical generator (non-solid, rapidly rotating around it’s center-of-gravity with no bearings to steady it and no fixed “bars” to contain its magnetic lines of flux- compared to the huge rigidly connected generators I work inside daily!
Further wisting the sun’s net field position is the fact that its poles spin many days faster than the equator. Even with no Jovian influence, the ney flux would be “complex” to say the least, but at least would be “chaotically steady.”
But this uncoupled plasma generator IS rotating about a constantly offset Jupiter-Sun center of gravity (CG) that precesses around the sun just under the sun’s surface. This CG offset “pushes” through the 35 day rotating surface generator flux lines and the 28 day polar flux line at the same speed as the rotation of Jupiter (obviously) – or about 12 years.
By themselves, this CG offset would create some pertubations – but they would be constant since the driver speed didn’t change from year to year. (Jupiter’s orbit doesn’t change over any reasonable obsservation frame.)
But when you add Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, Earth and Venus to that mix, the net CG DOES change in relative position slowly through the years. So, the “generator” does see a constantly changing CG in its outer surface currents as sun rotates about its pole.
Now, there is nothing to indicate any reason that fusion rates anywhere in this rotating plasma ball would change because of any change in gravity (or center of gravity really) holding the plasma sphere together. But – that plasma spere WILL get deformed by the constantly moving CG through its outer surface, and the generator will change its magnetic and light fields as the generator “wobbles.”
Lief has maintained very firmly that there is no tidal influence on the sun because of the earth, venus, mars, jupiter or saturn. This because he is treating the tidal attraction as if (in my opinion) he is treating both attractie boides as two independent solid masses of weight Mass-sun and mass-earth.
But solid balls of inflexile mass are NOT what the earh (and sun) are: The moon and sun create very visible and measureable tidal effects on the earth because the earth has a very “‘flexible” coating of water (the ocean) that IS deflected easily by the sun and moon as each rotates. And even – a little bit – this water is moved by Jupiter.
So, his comparison of how little the “sun” is moved by the earth is incorrect -this calculation assumes both are solids. It is much more important to know how much the flexible, roiling, moving average SURFACE of the sun (where these magnetic flux and electric currents are flowing through a roating plasma ball) that has bulged up and rotated around as the earth orbits each year. There is a separate “bulge” under Mercury, under Venus, under Mars (very small!), none for the asteroids – they are a uniform pull around their orbit, another bulge uder Jupiter, another under Saurn, etc.
So, what is the effect on solar wind, sunspots, TSI, magnetic fields, and cosmic rays as these bulges cut through different flux fields under the sun’s surface each 12 permanent Jovian “cycle”?
Does the sun have chaotically stable “bands” of horizontal flux “clouds” and rotating “storms” like Jupiter because these flux lines are predictably and uniformly being wraped by different amplitude bulges – each traveling through the same generatot flux line at different times and at different speeds through the solar year??
“… being wraped by different amplitude bulges”
should be “being warped by different amplitude bulges”
I don’t believe Leif maintains that there is “no tidal influence” but that the tidal influence is so small as to be insignificant (on the order of 1-2mm distortion).
Robert A Cook PE (23:39:50) :
You are not addressing your questions to me, but I want to ask you whether you know that the earth-moon barycenter is cruising through the mantle of the earth daily
from wikipedia:
The Earth-Moon barycenter (EMB), is the barycenter, or center of mass, of the Earth-Moon system of celestial bodies. It is the point about which the Earth and Earth’s Moon orbit (as they travel around the sun).[1]
The location of the EMB is on the line connecting the centres of the Earth and Moon, approximately 1710 km below the surface of the Earth.
The only effect there is is the synchronous move with the bulge of the tides. There are no gravity effects as it sweeps through mantle simply because the barycenter is only a convenient calculation point that carries absolutely no gravity forces. The gravitational forces are the ones emanating from the moon and earth and cause the bulge of the tides twice a day.
Similarly the barycenter of the solar system is a convenient point for some calculations but the only gravity effect that the motion of the planets can have is the tidal effect, because gravitational bodies carry the forces and not points in space. Tidal effects , as Leif has taught us, are tiny.
anna v, you say:
One of the oddities of the solar system is that at times, the barycenter is outside the surface of the sun. As you say, the barycenter is convenient for calculations. One of these is calculating the total momentum of the solar system.
Total momentum of the system, of course, stays constant. This is the sum of the angular momentum of each of the objects around its own axis, plus the angular momentum of each solar bodies around the barycenter.
While the total is constant, the amount of momentum is constantly shifting between the planets and the sun. It is also constantly shifting between angular momentum about the sun’s axis, and angular momentum about the barycenter.
And this, of course, leads to the flow of the solar magnetic generator speeding up or slowing down, with whatever solar flux effects that might bring. I think this has a large effect on the spherical plasma generator … but hey, what do I know?
Think of the sun as a rotating solar generator – with no bearings to restrain it, and with flexible coils being flailed and randomly thrown about it is distorted and “wobbled” around the barycenter by the planets.
Sometimes in synch, sometimes widely out of synch with the surface currents, the “wobble” will change in different “beats” because the planets are constantly changing phase.
I think that is one failure point for those who try to create “perfect” sunspot “frequencies” and “perfect” sunspot cycles over time by plotting a single “best fit” curve.
The true frequency of the sun IS changing – it only approximately fits a 11.3 year cycle, but I think a close match of ACTUAL sunspot counts vs planet positions would NOT create a “constant” 11.2 11.3 11.4 or any other cycle frequency.
Mr Cook
I find your analysis of dynamics in the solar surface layers interesting and helpful for understanding processes that could be governing solar oscillations.
Combined with Mr. Sharp’s work related to the differential speeds
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/
and Mr. Vukcevic’s formula (my apology for misspelling your name in my previous post) for polar fields synchronisation
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarFields-vf.gif
would present a new approach, taking the mystery out of the problem.
Miss Anna V has provided a useful link,
which may demonstrate how peaks of gravity and magnetic fields (at times of the planets’ line up) could provide necessarys ynchronisation pulses. It is known that the planets’ orbits are in near synchronism (Titius–Bode law).
Yes, the earth-moon barycenter passes through the (solid) surface of the earth daily – Well, technically, once per moon’s rotation – not quite every 24 hours 8<) – but that passage (like the effect of the tides on a land’s mass and the ocean’s mass) differs strongly between the sun and the earth.
(I grant also that the earth’s land does move up and down slightly with the effect of the tide, but that daily movement can be separated easily from the side-to-side relative movement of a fault line over times measured in years, or the vertical movement of a subduction zone measured over centuries.)
In the roiling twisting “light weight” plasma of the sun, tidal effects will move mass – particularly when that “mass” is ENTIRELY moving itself: EVERY charged particle is affected independently constantly by outside forces that change with time.
As the slides of the sun’s currents show, the masses of independently charged moving ions inside the sun are NOT anything that can be compared to the earth’s crust, but rather to a “herd” of oppositely charged magnetic jellyfish trapped inside a coral lagoon being whippedd around in a tornado during a hurricane while a tidal wave goes by. You can only describe them in general terms of average flows. Sometimes. Maybe.
But, unlike the earth, each individual ion is affected simultaneously by:
Gravity = always towards the average center of the sun. Center of the system CG also.
Ionic repulsion from its area neighbors = away from every neighbor. Slightly fewer neighbors away from the sun – so there will be more net force “out” than “in”.
Collisions with immediately adjacent neighbors exchanging momentum. (Not nuclear reactions from source fusion – that happens further in.)
Magnetic currents “looping” at right angles with electric currents on very long passes through the sun’s surface, out and back. (Similar shapes to the visible solar flares.)
Short range magnetic currents when local areas “boil” or float up to the surface.
So since every particle is individually and independently moved by every force, comparing earth’s crust (as a solid) to the individual ions in the sun isn’t entirely correct.
and added to that is the shift of the momentum is the total sum of the gravitational tides generated by our galaxy itself. The vast masses tumbling alongside our solar system cannot but ripple the very space our solar system occupies. Making the whole system a completely linear chaotic system. As these masses curve our space, they curve our observation along with it making it hard to measure. If you measure out a straight line with a curved ruler your measurement will show it to be straight, similarly if you calculate using mathematics based on our perception of reality you have no way of knowing if it corresponds to the actual facts.
The sun bulges,flexes and rotations by influences ways which at present can’t be calculated using our mathematics which are seriously handicapped by our limited lifespan. But they do influence the sun’s behavior nonetheless.
After the fact of observing the discrepancies we try to fit in these in our mathematic model. And no doubt succeed (using the curved ruler analogy) but if it corresponds to the reality we can only know after a couple billion years.
Willis Eschenbach (02:09:21) :
I think this has a large effect on the spherical plasma generator … but hey, what do I know?
I think you know quite a lot more than most…especially those who still think its all about tides.
Does this mean that the uptick in sunspots back in Aug/Sept of last year was more of a dead cat bounce, than the real start of cycle 24?
Willis Eschenbach (02:09:21) :
While the total is constant, the amount of momentum is constantly shifting between the planets and the sun. It is also constantly shifting between angular momentum about the sun’s axis, and angular momentum about the barycenter.
It is sad that the ‘best science blog’ has descended into this nonsense and that EVERY discussion of solar activity eventually ends up at this point. What makes you think that “It is also constantly shifting between angular momentum about the sun’s axis, and angular momentum about the barycenter”? This is the fatal flaw in the ‘argument’.
If you have two bodies orbiting their common barycenter, their orbital angular momenta shifts in concert to maintain the constant sum, but the rotational angular momentum does not. One can see this by direct calculation as the forces are always along the line connecting the two centers and have no transverse components, but that may be too much for this illiterate crowd, so perhaps a gedanken experiment might work instead [although I somehow doubt that anything reasoning will have any effect]. Imagine two identical bodies that are not rotating in orbit around their common barycenter. Now add mass to one of them [e.g. by symmetric infall of dust] or remove mass from the other [e.g. by symmetric evaporation a la the solar wind]. That would move the barycenter closer to the heavier of the two and shift orbital angular momentum between them [so the argument goes], but would not cause them all the sudden to begin rotating [and here the science illiterate would ask “why not” and the answer would be, because there is no force transverse to the line connecting the two bodies – this he may or may not understand]. Assume that our science illiterate maintains that a fraction, say 10%, of the orbital momentum nevertheless is ‘shifted’ into rotational angular momentum to change the rotation of both bodies [because why only of one?], consider the effect that would have if the bodies had a different size: if a body were to be very small, the shift of orbital angular momentum to it would cause it to rotate very fast, faster, the smaller the body was. For a small enough body [and there are lots of small bodies out there], exceeding the speed of light. The illiterate’s argument would now go on with “but there are not just two bodies in the solar system” and it is these additional bodies that cause all this havoc [and to boot, these are not SOLID]. He would not understand that the above considerations would apply to each of the bodies separately, so would not be able to see the absurdity of the situation. As I said, none of this will have any relevance for the faithful [judged from the many previous discussions] so I’ll let it rest here.
The correlations are seductive, Leif. It’s not stupidity, it’s temporary insanity.
=================================================
Dr. Svalgaard might think it’s “Sad”, but is he trying to create a diversion because his Achilles heal is being exposed?…..can he tell us what the solar polar field strength was likely to be at the end of SC19?
Willis Eschenbach (02:09:21) :
hmm
to start with, you say sometimes momentum when you mean angular momentum.
Angular momenta need an axis of reference.
The angular momenta that exist in the solar system are:
1) the angular momentum of each body around itself
2)the angular momentum of each body circling around the sun
3) the angular momentum of the moons circling around themselves
4) the angular momentum of the moons circling around their planet
5) the angular momentum of the moons circling the sun
and for good measure, the angular momentum of the whole system circling the galaxy, where the barycenter has a meaning as being the point where the effective mass of the total solar system is and therefore its effective angular momentum with respect to the galaxy. That is the only time where the barycenter can have a momentum or an angular momentum. As a point in space, it has mass zero, therefore neither momentum nor angular momentum.
Its only meaning is to be a “point” representative of the total solar system. ( momentum =mass times velocity, angular momentum= momentum cross product with the direction vector about the rotation axis).
Now we come to the crux of the problem : each individual angular momentum is conserved unless and until an exchanged force acts on it. The only force of any magnitude in power acting on the solar system is gravity. Gravity generated tides, they affect the angular momentum, of the earth, the moon the planets the sun .
The tides on the earth in the mantle are of the order of 40CM. The reason we get meter and maybe 6 meter tides in the sea is because of ocean bottom effects on tidal waves from conservation of energy and momentum. I have not checked the effect of the tides on the atmosphere, a gas, (btw plasma is a gaslike thing in density,) but I would have noticed if they were large.
Tides in the sun are of the order of 2mm. Even if we give a factor of 100 amplification because of differences in density etc we still are at a miniscule scale compared to the action on the sun.
You can always define an arbitrary axis and calculate angular momenta. So?
The barycenter has 0 angular momentum because it has 0 momentum because it has 0 mass. To define an angular momentum for the sun you have to pick an axis and stick to it. You cannot say ” the barycenter is moving angularly and therefore the angular momentum of the sun with respect to the barycenter is changing. It is your definition of the particular angular momentum that is changing . The sun could not care less.
Take an ice dancer spinning. If I sit next to her and define her angular momentum with axis myself, and I start skating around, will the dancer be affected by the changes in her angular momentum with respect to myself? Why not? because there has been no exchange of forces between us. There is no exchange of forces between the barycenter of the solar system and the sun.
There could be a meaning if one defined a barycenter of all the moons and planets and gave an effective mass circling the sun. Then there is momentum and there is mass, but again the only effect will be effective tidal forces from that mass. In fact I am pretty sure that is how the 2mm tides were calculated.