Yesterday I lamented that the sun was blank, not only on the SOHO MDI, but also the magnetogram. Within a couple of hours, one sunspeck appeared. I cited Murphy’s Law. As one commenter put it: ” I think if you check back for the last six months or so whenever you mention the lack of sunspots on here, one shows up.”.
Perhaps if I stop writing about the lack of sunspots, a grand minimum will appear. Such power I wield. 😉
The plage area now has no characteristics of a classic spot as you can see on the MDI, but it did yesterday ever so faintly as you can see in a previous MDI image here.
It is rather faint. It is doubtful that pre 20th century astronomers would see it.
NASA’s Dr. Tony Philips, who runs Spaceweather.com also got sucked in by the spotlessness yesterday and wrote this today:
Where have all the sunspots gone? As of yesterday, March 21st, the sun has been blank on 85% of the days of 2009. If this rate of spotlessness continues, 2009 will match 1913 as the blankest year of the past century. A flurry of new-cycle sunspots in Oct. 2008 prompted some observers to declare that solar minimum was ending, but since then the calm has returned. We are still in the pits of a deep solar minimum.
Coincidences and commentary aside, the plage group that appeared shortly after these two posts yesterday is an oddball to be sure. Have a look at the magentogram:
It has the classic high latitude of an SC24 spot, but reversed polarity.
Jan Janssens writes:
” 22 March 09 – New SC24-group has reversed polarity… – The new sunspotgroup that is visible in today’s SOHO-images, has -according to the corresponding magnetogram- a reversed polarity (SC23/25). Though on itself this is not so peculiar (every solar cycle has about hundred such groups, or about 3% of the total), it is already the second SC24-group showing this “aberration”: NOAA 1003, visible for just one day (04 October 2008) on the southern hemisphere (-23°), had a polarity equal to that of a unpair solar cycle too (see slide 4 of my presentation). That makes 2 out of 13 (15%), if this group gets a NOAA-number. ”
Compare the current magnetogram to one where a true SC24 spot did form on Feb 24th, 2009:
The real question is: how long will it last? Most of the cycle 24 spots (and disturbances that don’t rise to spots) have very short lifetimes. Will this new one grow and be assigned a number? Or will it wink out?
We live in interesting times.
Leif Svalgaard (11:02:47) :
to
vukcevic (10:16:07) :
………to drive an electrical current in the solar interior you need a voltage difference……..
That is all fine, except plasma is a conductor and it is moving within magnetic fields, hence induced electric currents; fluid dynamo (shallow or deep). A dynamo is another name for an electrical (DC) current generator.
vukcevic (12:23:11) :
That is all fine, except plasma is a conductor and it is moving within magnetic fields, hence induced electric currents; fluid dynamo (shallow or deep). A dynamo is another name for an electrical (DC) current generator.
No, all is not fine. The current is a small-scale current. There is no large-scale [global or hemispherical] electric current driving this. The small-scale current is the result not the driver of the dynamo. External influences [by planets billions of kilometers away] would be large scale. But, back to answering my questions: How does the external influence reverse the polar fields, cause the polarity change of toroidal fields between cycles and between hemispheres? The failure to cope with these questions [the toroidal ones] was the real reason for the immediate downfall of the planetary theory after Hale discovered these reversals. So, educate us.
Leif Svalgaard (11:53:09) :
to
vukcevic (11:09:44) :
I noticed you avoided commenting on the following heresy :
You will also notice smooth transition (1980 and 2000)
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PF.gif
when external field and dynamo are in polarity synchronism, or alternatively, up to 2-3 year resistance (1970 and 1990) when external enforcement is working against the internal dynamo, I will return to it again.
and what reverses the polarities of spot pairs from cycle to cycle and from hemisphere to hemisphere. Details please.
Simple:
Two major planets with strong magnetic fields of their own, are interacting with the helispheric current sheet and in doing so take energy out of it, consequently change its intensity in the onward intensity. The HCS splits into two constituent components at the outlying reaches of heliosphere, and following magnetic field lines each returns back to the poles as polar current.
When polar current is rising (positive gradient) it induces secondary currents of a particular polarity, which in turn energise sunspot loops, notice their longitudinal orientation.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/SolarCurrents.gif
Polar current reaches max, polar fields strongest, (gradient = 0), no induction of secondary current, no sunspot loops, at this point, when gradient changes direction. new rising secondary current will change polarity, and consequently sunspots change their polarity
Opposite is the case when polar current is falling towards the other extreme (negative value). Secondary current is strongest at the time of steepest gradient of polar current change (reversal of its direction), as the consequence polar fields go through zero, polar fields flip polarity (solar max).
To this, I may add that the Sun contains a weak internal dynamo of a long term steady polarity (analogous to planetary ones):
You will also notice smooth transition (1980 and 2000)
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PF.gif
when externally enforced field and dynamo are in polarity synchronism, or alternatively, up to 2 year resistance (1970 and 1990) when external enforcement is working against the internal dynamo.
Simple if you formulate a consistent hypothesis that does not depend on a chance or 1/1000 of anything.
This hypothesis shows that Rmax of a cycle has a certain relationship to the strength of polar fields at previous minimum (further apart they are larger gradient change required), so your prediction method is consistent with it, (while polar fields are not related to the past cycle), and B-L theory is not.
Correction
consequently change its intensity in the onward intensity
should be:
consequently change its intensity in the onward direction.
First paragraph is a follow up from the other thread
External influences [by planets billions of kilometers away] would be large scale
Nothing to do with distances involved except six months to a year or more delay.
The HCS splits into two constituent components at the outlying reaches of heliosphere, and following magnetic field lines each returns back to the poles as polar current.
Leif is there any research that supports the idea I mentioned in my above post about:
-rotating supercell thunderstorms producing the world’s strongest tornados
-rotating sunspots producing most of the sun’s flares (some of the flares are solar tornados)
I realize we are talking about different animals….but the Coriolis Effect influences both,both rotate, both help produce violent vortices [going on what you mentioned “there are studies that show that the spots that lead to large flares are the ones with the most rotation and twisting”]…
Would be interested to know if that comparison has ever been done scientifically or are the ideas just not possible to compare??
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/05/28/2258141.htm
Thanks
Chris
Norfolk, VA
Leif Svalgaard (12:42:15) :
The failure to cope with these questions [the toroidal ones] was the real reason for the immediate downfall of the planetary theory after Hale discovered these reversals. So, educate us.
Nonsense…the two are not connected. Planetary theory works with a dynamo model, it just does not rely on all the fudge factors and random events that some parts of science substitute for lack of knowledge.
Seriously, I’ve always wondered where the hole of the toroid is… or was.
vukcevic (14:08:00) :
The HCS splits into two constituent components at the outlying reaches of heliosphere, and following magnetic field lines each returns back to the poles as polar current.
No, it does not. We’ll continue in the other thread.
23
03
2009
savethesharks (14:13:21) :
Leif is there any research that supports the idea I mentioned in my above post about:
-rotating supercell thunderstorms producing the world’s strongest tornados
-rotating sunspots producing most of the sun’s flares (some of the flares are solar tornados)
I realize we are talking about different animals….but the Coriolis Effect influences both,both rotate, both help produce violent vortices [going on what you mentioned “there are studies that show that the spots that lead to large flares are the ones with the most rotation and twisting”]…
Would be interested to know if that comparison has ever been done scientifically or are the ideas just not possible to compare??
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/05/28/2258141.htm
Thanks
Chris
Norfolk, VA
savethesharks (14:13:21) :
Would be interested to know if that comparison has ever been done scientifically or are the ideas just not possible to compare??
Such comparisons have been made informally, although a detailed study is a bit to much as the two are not really that much the same, one taking place in a conductor and the other in a neutral atmosphere. Analogies should not be driven too far.
Geoff Sharp (15:00:53) :
Nonsense…the two are not connected. Planetary theory works with a dynamo model, it just does not rely on all the fudge factors and random events that some parts of science substitute for lack of knowledge.
So educate us [and Vuc] how the polarity reversals happen, then we can compare the education we get from Vuc with the education we get from you.
Leif Svalgaard (16:59:56) :
So educate us [and Vuc] how the polarity reversals happen, then we can compare the education we get from Vuc with the education we get from you.
I dont have a theory on pole reversal, happy to run with the current theories for now, and I don’t regard it as important either. It obviously a major part of the dynamo, but I doubt it has any influence on cycle modulation, cycle length or grand minimum effects. I dont hold it up as a theory disprover like you and De Jager.
De Jager also states:
“Conversely, it must be noted that the present dynamo theories, although well
describing the periodicities and the polarity reversal of solar activity, are not yet able to quantitatively explain the 11- and 22-year cycles, nor the other observed quasicycles. Therefore quantitative explanations need to be found for the quasi-cyclic behavior of solar activity.”
Perhaps you can educate us and tell us what date the next polar reversal will happen?
Geoff Sharp (17:47:48) :
I dont have a theory on pole reversal, happy to run with the current theories for now, and I don’t regard it as important either. It obviously a major part of the dynamo, but I doubt it has any influence on cycle modulation, cycle length or grand minimum effects.
But you know enough about how the dynamo works to doubt these things? Or do you simply mean that you do not know how they work? A short while ago you stated that the B-L theory had serious flaws, now you are happy to run with it…
So, to summarize your view, planetary influences do not create or maintain the solar cycle, just modulate it. Correct?
De Jager also states:
“Conversely, it must be noted that the present dynamo theories, although well describing the periodicities and the polarity reversal of solar activity, are not yet able to quantitatively explain the 11- and 22-year cycles, nor the other observed quasicycles. Therefore quantitative explanations need to be found for the quasi-cyclic behavior of solar activity.”
This is precisely my statement too in our solar cycle prediction paper. The key word is ‘quantitatively’. What DeJager means is that we cannot do this yet from first principles [I doubt if we ever will], but as Choudhuri has shown, once the polar fields are known, the next cycle can be quantitatively predicted.
Perhaps you can educate us and tell us what date the next polar reversal will happen?
since this depends on a nearly random process several years in the future is cannot be ‘predicted’. It can be guesstimated to be about the time of the maximum which in turn can be estimated to occur 5-6 after this minimum just passed based on the average behavior of a small cycle. SC25 cannot be predicted either, only estimated or guessed from past behavior of small cycles [SC24]. Chances are good it will be small too.
Leif wrote: “Such comparisons have been made informally, although a detailed study is a bit to much as the two are not really that much the same, one taking place in a conductor and the other in a neutral atmosphere. Analogies should not be driven too far.”
Okay….humor me a bit more.
Supercell thunderstorms [heat convection] and sunspots [“cool” convection]: both areas of convection
The strongest rotating complexes of both, produce the most violent vortices…
Both rotating complexes are not vortices like the violent ones they produce.
But neither are they vortices in the sense of true cyclones (such as hurricanes or “ion hurricanes”)
Granted I understand the extreme dissimilarity here….but we do have some similarities…..the wind & the solar wind….the Coriolis Force affecting both spheres of sun and earth…
With the dissimilarities in place, also the informal comparison of magnetic lines (on the sun) to isobars (on earth)….
I can see why even an informal comparison could be made of the subject at hand.
So….to recap:
The strongest rotating complexes of both, produce the most violent vortices…
Both rotating complexes are not vortices like the violent ones they produce.
But neither are they vortices in the sense of true cyclones (such as hurricanes or “ion hurricanes”).
They are both MESOCYCLONES……rotating complexes that produce actual vortices.
Doesn’t seem to impossible to rule out, no?
Chris
Norfolk, VA
Correction:
Doesn’t seem to impossible to rule out, no?
to
Doesn’t seem TOO impossible to rule out, no?
Enjoy the show, folks, the Sun will do or not do what it pleases irregardless of what we agree or don’t agree upon. She’s breaking up, that microspeck producing magnetic thing, and that’s pretty much along the lines of what it’s been up to for the last 3 months.
The Sun has been making crank phone calls.
Leif Svalgaard (18:37:42) :
But you know enough about how the dynamo works to doubt these things? Or do you simply mean that you do not know how they work? A short while ago you stated that the B-L theory had serious flaws, now you are happy to run with it…
So, to summarize your view, planetary influences do not create or maintain the solar cycle, just modulate it. Correct?
I probably understand the theory enough to know how it works, my problem with it is not in the pole reversal which I think will still change as we learn more, but with the random nature of how the poles are loaded, and the varying times it takes to flow back to the Tachocline by different theorists. I also do not favor the poles as a major driver, but more a minor player. B-L theory seems to suggest its the return of the poles to the Tachocline which is then broken up by differential rotation as the next cycle’s fodder. I suspect the next cycle arises from the Tachocline from the acceleration/deceleration of the Sun from planetary influence and is then supported by the poles. But thats just my theory, a different type of dynamo.
This is precisely my statement too in our solar cycle prediction paper. The key word is ‘quantitatively’. What DeJager means is that we cannot do this yet from first principles [I doubt if we ever will], but as Choudhuri has shown, once the polar fields are known, the next cycle can be quantitatively predicted.
There is still a gaping hole yet to be discovered. As far as predictions go, polar strength theory has only been used on a few cycles, SC20 is in doubt, just as is SC24.
since this depends on a nearly random process several years in the future is cannot be ‘predicted’. It can be guesstimated to be about the time of the maximum which in turn can be estimated to occur 5-6 after this minimum just passed based on the average behavior of a small cycle. SC25 cannot be predicted either, only estimated or guessed from past behavior of small cycles [SC24]. Chances are good it will be small too.
This is my point, its all very vague. I can predict whether the cycle will be weak or strong, whether we will have a grand minimum and do so for any point in time in the future. But I cant tell you when the cycle will be at max or when the reversal will happen. There has been a lot uncovered recently and more people are digging, I wouldnt be surprised to see a major break through during the next 1-2 cycles.
savethesharks (19:22:45) :
They are both MESOCYCLONES……rotating complexes that produce actual vortices.
Doesn’t seem to impossible to rule out, no?
I wouldn’t disagree, but cannot follow you [and bold doesn’t help]. I thought a vortex was a rotating ‘complex’.
Geoff Sharp (19:41:38) :
There is still a gaping hole yet to be discovered. As far as predictions go, polar strength theory has only been used on a few cycles, SC20 is in doubt, just as is SC24.
I thought [as far as I can tell from the observations and discussions with the observers back then] that SC20 is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for the polar strength theory. And SC24 looks pretty good so far. I would not call it a doubtful call.
This is my point, its all very vague. I can predict whether the cycle will be weak or strong, whether we will have a grand minimum and do so for any point in time in the future.
I do not think you have demonstrated anything like this. I have taken a very careful looks at what you have presented [and I don’t think ANY other scientist would have expended as much or even close of his time to do that – if so, let him speak up]. We have a couple of people here who claim that they can predict this at any time in the future and in the past. Yet those ‘predictions’ disagree. The weak arguments from both parties would likely be that more planets have to be incorporated, more research done, this is a work in progress awaiting breakthroughs a few decades down the road, and such. This does not make it in my book. A major reason for this is the lack of viable mechanisms or even just plausible ones. If the correlations are really good one might dispense with a mechanism for now, but, alas, they are marginal at best.
Leif….sorry I just figureed out the effects here….including the bold.
I know I know one-eyed blind etc etc. Late bloomer here…LOL
Mesocyclones don’t…I don’t think…in an of themselves have an “eye”…unlike the vortices they produce (tornados)…or like other cyclones such as hurricanes and temperate latitude cyclones.
NOAA Storm Spotters Glossary says this under Mesocyclone:
Properly used, mesocyclone is a radar term; it is defined as a rotation signature appearing on Doppler radar that meets specific criteria for magnitude, vertical depth, and duration. Therefore, a mesocyclone should not be considered a visually-observable phenomenon (although visual evidence of rotation, such as curved inflow bands, may imply the presence of a mesocyclone).”
The mesocyclone….I guess in its most legalistic definition, could be called a vortex….but it is is not in the same league as true vortices: whirlpools, dust-devils, waterspouts, fire-tornadoes, tornadoes, hurricanes, temperate latitude lows, solar tornadoes [ 🙂 ]
That was my point about the rotating sunspots. Its just interesting to note the similarity of these rotating convective complexes as they move across the sun….look remotely like supercell thunderstorms.
And add to that the fact that both actually eventually produce very violent vortices….got my attention.
Chris
Norfolk, VA
We should have a new classification for the sunspecks we have seen lately, we should be calling them ghostspecks. Definition: Here at midnight, gone by morning!
Hey Rob….agreed with you man. One thing though: “irregardless” is not a word.
It formed as a bastard child of the parents “regardless” and “irrespective”.
That being said your comments are one of the ones I page down through the gibberish and always stop for.
Appreciate the intellect man…you are definitely one of the smartest guys on here. Just wanted to make that semantic correction for the record. Please do not take offense.
:~)
Chris
Norfolk, VA
Leif Svalgaard (20:36:55) :
I do not think you have demonstrated anything like this. I have taken a very careful looks at what you have presented [and I don’t think ANY other scientist would have expended as much or even close of his time to do that – if so, let him speak up]. We have a couple of people here who claim that they can predict this at any time in the future and in the past. Yet those ‘predictions’ disagree. The weak arguments from both parties would likely be that more planets have to be incorporated, more research done, this is a work in progress awaiting breakthroughs a few decades down the road, and such. This does not make it in my book. A major reason for this is the lack of viable mechanisms or even just plausible ones. If the correlations are really good one might dispense with a mechanism for now, but, alas, they are marginal at best.
You may have spent some time and I am grateful to some degree, our discussions have certainly spurred me on and enabled me to go further than I would solo, but you still dont understand most of it, so perhaps more work is needed? That’s up to you.
I am not aligning myself with any other theorist on Planetary Influence, many of the B-L theorist’s also disagree wildly on predictions, and blame that on not enough knowledge or different methods etc.
For prediction purposes there is probably enough work done in my area with a few small details to solve. The causation side is the focus from now on so I dont need any excuses. If you think that 6000 yrs of planetary lineups which correlate with reduced solar activity and their modulation is an example of marginal correlation you have your eyes closed.
Savethesharks: Enjoyed the irregardless. It’s one of those non-words that if used enough eventually gets to be a word. Like this minimum. If it keeps on doing what it likes to do, which is drive us all nuts, then it will become a Grand Minimum.
What I am really saying is this: Instead of focusing, as most have been, on the nuts and bolts of how to predict the Sun, how about some dialog on WHAT the Sun is doing? It didn’t do what many thought it would. It continued to fall off.
It used to do this in the 19th Century, and just into the 20th, but then it stopped doing that.
What was it doing while it fell off?
And when it got to the bottom, it just stayed there.
What was it doing when it hit bottom?
And it has stayed there for a full year.
What is it doing staying down there?
There is the obvious.
A cycle transitions before bottom is hit, and moves on.
A cycle hits bottom and transitions, but gets right back up.
A cycle hits bottom and just lays there.
What is it doing when these things happen?
Shouldn’t there be something going on in behavior that is different in the 3 cases that tells us what it’s doing?
I hope so, because all this prediction stuff is getting all of us nowhere in a big hurry.
Robert Bateman (03:16:33) : Savethesharks: “Enjoyed the irregardless. It’s one of those non-words that if used enough eventually gets to be a word. Like this minimum. If it keeps on doing what it likes to do, which is drive us all nuts, then it will become a Grand Minimum.”
Haha….only YOU could write yourself out of that one, man. Well done.
Robert Bateman (03:16:33) What I am really saying is this: Instead of focusing, as most have been, on the nuts and bolts of how to predict the Sun, how about some dialog on WHAT the Sun is doing?
AGREED. And that argument could be carried to the current raging climate forecasting arena too.
Prediction and reliance on models take on a life of their own it seems….and they shouldn’t. Prediction and models should be subservient to observation, and not the other way around.
As Rob mentioned in another thread or blog….can’t remember where: “We all need to get out more!”
And how many daily repetitions is it going to take of the new mantra for 2009 “The Sun is Blank: No Sunspots”…to really get the world’s attention??
Chris
Norfolk, VA
Sorry about the bold. I thought I had figured out to turn it off…
simple use /b inside the left and right arrows, and then not not add an extra b after it. – Anthony