I’ve done some house cleaning and maintenance today to replace the aging SOHO image on the sidebar (which had not been updating since January 11th, thanks to Ric Werme for reminding me) with a new image from the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) which provides stunning detail over the now 15 year old SOHO instrument.
We have a one-stop-shop for the most commonly used solar images and data in one place now.
See the WUWT Solar Images and Data Page here
Be sure to bookmark it or you can get it from the sidebar image or the pulldown menu under the WUWT header:
I’ve tried to include everything that I think might be interesting and pertinent, but I will entertain suggestions for new content below. Images and links only please.
YEA!!!!!!!!
Have you provided a clear link for Tamino to follow or he will miss it 😉
Thank you for a very useful page.
One you may like to include is http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20at%20Minima%201954%20and%202008.png which compares the 1954 and 2008 minima
Is it worth including the Livingstone and Penn graph from http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
Wonderful…. thank you sources…. and thank WUWT for bringing this all together… the only thing I would add is the Layman’s Count from http://www.landscheidt.info/images/lay_monthly.png
just noticed the diagrams from Dr. Leif Svalgaard which have click to enlarge under them don’t
REPLY: fixing that thx
Very nice. Bravo!
The sun spot graph compares against an out of date prediction.
The graph of changing predictions for cycle 24 would be useful.
Easy and open access to all manner of current and relevant climate data at this site has always been welcomed by free- thinkers of the world.
The ability for anyone, with any viewpoint, to make comment at this site regarding climate issues, has also been beneficial for meaningful debate.
Contrast these two seemingly simple, but basic elements of rational discourse with what can be found at the sites promoted by the elitist advocates of doom and tyranny.
The warmistas betray themselves for all the world to see.
Thanks Anthony.
Excellent page. Reason #eleventybrazillion this is the best climate blog on the internet…
Anthony, you might want to include a link to the STEREO (Solar TErrestrial RElations Observatory) imagery, which is NASA’s program to provide 3D imagery of the Sun
http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/mission/mission.shtml
The “Ahead” and “Behind” spacecraft have now drifted further such that they provide a view of the far side of the sun, allowing us to track old regions as they rotate out of Earth view and to see new regions forming on the far side.
Thanks Anthony, that is a great page!!
The only thing I am missing is this high quality grayscale image
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_2048_HMII.jpg
I realise you have high-res (4096 and 2048) yellow versions, but the image linked to above is of higher quality and easier to evaluate for “tiny tims” and such.
REPLY: Your’e right I’ll add a link under the main big yellow -A
I once exchanged emails with the person at Stanford doing the orange colorizations of the SOHO images, I really never understood why they do such things. The yellow SDO images seem to be the latest twist to this. I prefer the original grayscale as it contains more information.
Excellent.
I’d noticed on the SOHO web site the other day that they’d just replaced the old SOHO MDI Continuum & Magnetogram images with these newer SDO images. So you’re right on top of the latest happenings.
One-stop shopping at WUWT.
Excellent new page. I especially like the Lyman’s sunspot count.
Excellent new page.
The only thing it possibly lacks is the daily sunspot number, available here :
http://spaceweather.com/
REPLY: That’s on the WUWT widget, but the software must be manually launched to make that image, working to improve that timeliness with automation. Amazingly there exists no regularly updated image on the net (other than that) of the SSN number. – A
cool vids
Great stuff Anthony. Really handy to have all these resources linked to from one site. Thanks.
Finally all about the state of the sun under ONE click. Thanks!
On the threads relating to the solar events it is often stated that magnetic flux ropes (magnetic clouds) do not contain net electric current.
However, top expert (and most often quoted author) R.P. LEPPING, from Laboratory for Solar and Space Physics NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center, in his paper
‘A summary of WIND magnetic clouds for years 1995-2003 : model-fitted parameters, associated errors and classifications’
states: MCs (magnetic clouds) are just under one day long, are 1/4AU in diameter, have a broad distribution of axial directions with a slight preference for alignment with the Y-axis(GSE), have axial fluxes of 10^21Mx, have axial current densities of about 2μA/km2, and carry a total axial current (IT ) of about a billion amps.
Also from NASA in MAGNETIC CLOUD BOUNDARY TIMES AS DETERMINED BY MFI DATA
….. magnetic field model assumes that the field within the magnetic cloud is force free, i.e., so that the electrical current and the magnetic field are parallel and proportional in strength everywhere within its volume.
Since magnetic clouds are magnetic loops that are rooted at both ends in the Sun, the above if correct, opens possibility for direct electric current link between the Sun and planets’ magnetospheres at reconnection times (e.g. during geomagnetic storms).
Can you include some sort of benchmark or something to compare too. I know we’re in a quiet sun time, but what do some of the items you show look like when the sun is really active or during a solar max? (magnetic field, winds, pressure)
Thanks
That’s a great page though I couldn’t help notice that there is no mention of our other sun, Betelgeuse.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/sci-tech/tatooines-twin-suns-coming-to-a-planet-near-you-just-as-soon-as-betelgeuse-explodes/story-fn5fsgyc-1225991009247
REPLY: And there won’t be because the story is 2012 related nuttiness – Anthony
Yatta! Saves a bit more time, thank you to all at the blog.
It might be interesting to have the various SC 24 predictions of the last two years overlaid upon the updating sunspot count. I know of no link for that.
These reference pages are absolute golddust, and this one no different. Fabulous images and information. I wish I had half your stamina.
Lord Monckton of Brenchley was on our very own Late Late Show (apparently the longest running talk show in the World). I didn’t see it (will view it on RTE player), but I believe he drove a Dumper Truck through the whole AGW meme, along with the Green Party member who called him a climate d****er. He was very well received by the audience.
Anthony, if anyone is doing a periodically updated comparison chart of the recent SC pattern to that of the LIA, it’d be quite interesting to have on the resource page. If you’re not aware of one, perhaps another commentator here will see this, know of, and provide a link to one….
Thanks!!
Or should I have said maunder minimum rather than LIA?
Good job!!
How about some of the charts from http://www.solen.info/solar ?
The POES auroral activity level and cycle comparison charts may be of interest.
This one might be worth having on the solar page:
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif
vukcevic says:
January 22, 2011 at 3:29 pm
On the threads relating to the solar events it is often stated that magnetic flux ropes (magnetic clouds) do not contain net electric current.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Whenever there a boundaries and structures in a plasma there are electric currents, e.g. the Heliospheric Current Sheet, or the plasma sheet in the Earth’s magnetosphere.
Since magnetic clouds are magnetic loops that are rooted at both ends in the Sun, the above if correct, opens possibility for direct electric current link between the Sun and planets’ magnetospheres at reconnection times (e.g. during geomagnetic storms).
The currents are, however, local [that is determined by the magnetic field] and do not act back on the Sun [as your link says: the structure is ‘force-free’].
Michael Mann was on NPR tonight talking about natural climate change during the Roman period and the role of the sun. He also talked about the current La nina. It sounded like a joint effort by NPR and Mann to spin the coming decline as something they expected.
Anthony,
Thank you for the solar page. Of all the great topics here at your WUWT the solar are the ones I love most.
Hope all is well!
John
vukcevic says:
January 22, 2011 at 3:29 pm
On the threads relating to the solar events it is often stated that magnetic flux ropes (magnetic clouds) do not contain net electric current.
Have you thought about what ‘net electric current’ means?
Here is more on MCs:
The formation of large-scale current sheets within magnetic clouds
Owens, M. J. (2009) The formation of large-scale current sheets within magnetic clouds. Solar Physics, 260 (1). pp. 207-217. ISSN 0038-0938
DOI: 10.1007/s11207-009-9442-6
“Magnetic clouds are a class of interplanetary coronal mass ejections (CME) predominantly characterised by a smooth rotation in the magnetic field direction, indicative of a magnetic flux rope structure. Many magnetic clouds, however, also contain sharp discontinuities within the smoothly varying magnetic field, suggestive of narrow current sheets. In this study we present observations and modelling of magnetic clouds with strong current sheet signatures close to the centre of the apparent flux rope structure. Using an analytical magnetic flux rope model, we demonstrate how such current sheets can form as a result of a cloud’s kinematic propagation from the Sun to the Earth, without any external forces or influences. This model is shown to match observations of four particular magnetic clouds remarkably well. The model predicts that current sheet intensity increases for increasing CME angular extent and decreasing CME radial expansion speed. Assuming such current sheets facilitate magnetic reconnection, the process of current sheet formation could ultimately lead a single flux rope becoming fragmented into multiple flux ropes. This change in topology has consequences for magnetic clouds as barriers to energetic particle propagation.
Not strictly solar, but it might be worth having a neutron count on this page, given the Svensmark theory of solar moderation of galactic cosmic rays in the earth’s atmosphere and resulting climate impact. I look at this one from time to time: http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
A couple of other interesting connections to our environment are volcanic activity and the less interesting but very import, the earth’s magnetic field. Sprouting holes in the magnetic field obviously allow an increase in solar and galactic energy to reach the surface… a bad thing, unless you are a fish or cave dweller (cave men?) And, the great calderas are of the nasty sort of an event lurking to upset even the nicest people.
WUWT: the web site striving to meet the immediate need for constructive knowledge. Don’t leave home without it!
How about adding the Ecliptic Plane IMF plot here …
http://gse.gi.alaska.edu/recent/javascript_movie.html
Wang-Sheeley-Arge prediction model here …
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ws
Real-Time UAF Eulerian Parallel Polar Ionosphere Model here …
http://www.arsc.edu/SpaceWeather/MODEL.HTM
Polar Field Strength here …
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
Real-time Ionosphere-Thermosphere Simulation here …
http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/ion/index.html
CTIPe Electon Density here …
http://helios.swpc.noaa.gov/ctipe/plots/CTIPeElectronDensity.png
The NOAA count on the Layman’s count plot should be multiplied by 0.6 to bring it onto the Wolf scale. As it is now, it is like plotting Fahrenheit and Centigrade on the same graph.
REPLY: I’ll take it up with the proprietor of that graph. I thought the difference was oddly large, now I know why- Paging Geoff Sharp – Anthony
Add this one: http://www.solen.info/solar/images/solar.gif
Anthony, you have many fans and folks who genuinely appreciate the hard imaginative work that you do. WUWT is a goldmine of data sources. WUWT proves that many minds make large data bases of technical information. It also proves that science needs leaders just like business and government does. You are certainly a gifted leader of science.
Thanks, Anthony, Rick,
I updated my Solar images and links at “Observatorio ARVAL – Astronomy for South Florida” (http://www.oarval.org/astroFL.htm) and “Astronomía Caraqueña Actualizada” (http://www.oarval.org/ACCSxx.htm) [Spanish].
Anthony
Some of these links will duplicate what you already have (prune this list at will):-
Various solar images can be found at the Big Bear Solar Observatory
The Belgium Solar Influences Data Center
The Australian Space Weather Agency Solar Page
The Mauna Loa Solar Observatory in Hawaii
The National Solar Observatory
The NASA Solar Dynamics Observatory
The NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory
The Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment
The NASA Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory
The NOAA Solar and Terrestrial Physics Division
The Ulysses Solar Polar Mission Solar Wind Ion Composition Spectrometer
The NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center
The Indian Udaipur Solar Observatory
Also from the Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory in Finland:
The Winter All-Sky Aurora Camera
Terrific, thank you Anthony. Maybe already mentioned somewhere on WUWT but there is a natty iPhone app called 3D Sun that sends new Sol stuff direct to your phone including vids.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 22, 2011 at 6:54 pm
The NOAA count on the Layman’s count plot should be multiplied by 0.6 to bring it onto the Wolf scale. As it is now, it is like plotting Fahrenheit and Centigrade on the same graph.
REPLY: I’ll take it up with the proprietor of that graph. I thought the difference was oddly large, now I know why- Paging Geoff Sharp – Anthony
The NOAA value is the raw value that they post all over the world. Even on this website Anthony’s widget displays this raw value. I think this needs to be pointed out to the majority who are not aware (which I have done on the Layman’s page)
Thanks Leif for giving it some airtime. When NOAA start publishing a discounted value my graph will reflect the same.
vukcevic says: January 22, 2011 at 3:29 pm
. . . Since magnetic clouds are magnetic loops that are rooted at both ends in the Sun, the above if correct, opens possibility for direct electric current link between the Sun and planets’ magnetospheres at reconnection times (e.g. during geomagnetic storms).
Yet another source of renewable energy in case our fusion reactor research comes to nothing.
Great sun shots. The size of the earth on the 1024 images is about 7½ pixels, 30 pixels on the big 4096 images.
Gee that didn’t work out well. Make that 7 ½ pixels on the 1024 images.
½
½
and if none of the above prints out correctly –
one half
Holy ripped nylons, Batman !
Fantastic addition to WUWT’s already “uber-informative-database” !
I’d say this place has become the Wally-Mart of climate news, science, and discussion…
(… now if only Anthony can figure out how to get this website contraption thingy to make us mocha cappucinos whilst we read through all these great posts and pages…)
Geoff Sharp says:
January 22, 2011 at 8:11 pm
When NOAA start publishing a discounted value my graph will reflect the same.
They won’t. The argument still goes that it is like plotting Fahrenheit and Centigrade on the same graph [which is bad, no matter what]. You could plot a ‘NOAA*’ which is NOAA*0.6 and tell people that this is what it is. That would make the comparison fair [unless you some reason for not making it fair].
There are considerations that perhaps it is better not to discount SIDC as well and go back to the original Wolf definition. What will you do then? It is silly to be formal about it and say ‘they publish this or that’ and I’ll do the same. The purpose should be to make it easy for the reader to do the comparison. To help him in that, not requiring him to do a mental multiplication by 0.6.
Geoff Sharp says:
January 22, 2011 at 8:11 pm
When NOAA start publishing a discounted value my graph will reflect the same.
I agree with Leif. Why not simply show a “base” count and an adjusted count with two traces. It is certainly no worse than looking at some climate data graphs we’ve seen.
I think it would help NOAA begin to see the light. You’d be surprised how many times things that have been done here end up being changed at NOAA. No attribution of course, they can’t admit to such things, getting ideas from the unclean private sector, but they do read WUWT and act on things pointed out here.
Many thanks Antony. This is great!
re Anthony’s reply: REPLY: And there won’t be because the story is 2012 related nuttiness – Anthony
Ah, but utterly aside from any 2012 nuttiness – if Betelgeuse is to go supernova, god would I love to see it and so hope it does so far sooner rather than later – although I have a fond spot for Betelgeuse and so in some respects would hate to see it go so to speak…
Besides, I wonder if anyone knows or can figure out if there would be enough cosmic ray increase from it to cause significant cloud cover changes as per the ‘cosmic ray/cloud relationship’ theories? Wouldn’t it be sweet if something occurred that could definitively prove that one way or the other without doing any significant damage to us/the earth in the process?
Anthony Watts says:
January 22, 2011 at 10:40 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
January 22, 2011 at 8:11 pm
When NOAA start publishing a discounted value my graph will reflect the same.
I agree with Leif. Why not simply show a “base” count and an adjusted count with two traces. It is certainly no worse than looking at some climate data graphs we’ve seen.
I think it would help NOAA begin to see the light. You’d be surprised how many times things that have been done here end up being changed at NOAA. No attribution of course, they can’t admit to such things, getting ideas from the unclean private sector, but they do read WUWT and act on things pointed out here.
That sounds fair Anthony, I will add the extra line, if NOAA take notice then something might be achieved. The NOAA “adjusted” value will be useful when watching the monthly variation with the SIDC value. Could I suggest you add a comment under your widget values that display the NOAA sunspot count and F10.7 flux value, that both values are unadjusted.
REPLY: Sure, I’ll also add a similar explanation under your graph. – Anthony
Geoff Sharp says:
January 22, 2011 at 11:34 pm
The NOAA “adjusted” value will be useful when watching the monthly variation with the SIDC value.
The raw value does not seem useful at all and just clutters up the graph.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 23, 2011 at 12:14 am
Geoff Sharp says:
January 22, 2011 at 11:34 pm
The NOAA “adjusted” value will be useful when watching the monthly variation with the SIDC value.
The raw value does not seem useful at all and just clutters up the graph.
You could let the readership decide or advise and see how many REALLY, badly want the unadjusted curve.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 23, 2011 at 12:14 am
Geoff Sharp says:
January 22, 2011 at 11:34 pm
The NOAA “adjusted” value will be useful when watching the monthly variation with the SIDC value.
The raw value does not seem useful at all and just clutters up the graph.
I think your still missing the point Leif, most readers are probably not aware the NOAA sunspot values are unadjusted. The raw value is NOAA’s published value that is displayed here and spaceweather.com etc. Its not up to me to add confusion by doing my own adjustment to the NOAA values, but I do take on Anthony’s suggestion that plotting both might help educate those who are unaware.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 23, 2011 at 12:17 am
If we follow your logic Leif, it stands to reason that you must adjust your SOURCE graphs that display the NOAA unadjusted sunspot values as a preference with the SIDC adjusted values hardly visible?
Geoff Sharp says:
January 23, 2011 at 12:37 am
Its not up to me to add confusion by doing my own adjustment to the NOAA values
You are adding confusion by showing such a large difference between NOAA and SIDC. This has in the past sometimes been interpreted as sign of something fishy going on. No confusion will arise if you state that for comparison reasons, the two counts have been brought to the same scale. Every reasonable person would do this. The US temperatures are officially published in F, the rest of the world in C. I have never seen them plotted on the same graph and don’t think it would reasonable to do so.
Geoff Sharp says:
January 23, 2011 at 12:55 am
If we follow your logic Leif, it stands to reason that you must adjust your SOURCE graphs that display the NOAA unadjusted sunspot values as a preference with the SIDC adjusted values hardly visible?
I’m working on trying to convince SIDC to use the real uncorrected Wolf-style numbers [as NOAA already does], so I’m biased towards showing the real count, rather than goofy adjusted one. You could, actually, adopt the same strategy. Or at least show the unadjusted NOAA with tiny hardly visible symbols and line [assuming you are biased towards SIDC – I personally prefer the true Wolf numbers]
BTW, I was just in Switzerland to observe with Wolf’s original 80mm telescope and also with the tiny 40mm handheld. I’ll put some photos of those on my site, soon. I also visited Sergio Cortesi in Locarno. Great guy. Although he uses a 150mm refractor he has it stepped down to 80mm [with suitable piece of cardboard], to improve the contrast [you see more with 80mm than with 150mm].
Geoff Sharp says:
January 23, 2011 at 12:55 am
If we follow your logic Leif
Please do.
You also show F10.7 clearly scaled to match the SSN [can’t tell which one]. Try to plot F10.7 and SSN using the same scaling, but for twenty years ago:
http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20and%20SSN%202.png
Leif Svalgaard says:
– A little knowledge is a dangerous thing!
– no electric current
– there are currents in opposite direction: no net current
– there is only local current
A summary of WIND magnetic clouds for years 1995-2003 : model-fitted parameters
LEPPING et al Laboratory for Solar and Space Physics NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center
…have axial fluxes of 10^21Mx, have axial current densities of about 2μA/km2, and carry a total axial current (IT ) of about a billion amps…..that the electrical current and the magnetic field are parallel and proportional in strength everywhere within its volume.
http://www.ann-geophys.net/24/215/2006/angeo-24-215-2006.pdf
Axial is not local. Axial definition : located on, around , or in the direction of an axis.
Recent observations indicate that magnetic field lines of magnetic clouds do remain connected to the Sun [Larson et al., 1997].
http://wwwppd.nrl.navy.mil/prediction/storms.html
Here are some illustrations from NASA and US Navy:
http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/view_picture.asp?id=910
http://wwwppd.nrl.navy.mil/gif/cloudbig.gif
http://wwwppd.nrl.navy.mil/prediction/cloud_movie.gif
Mike McMillan says:
January 22, 2011 at 8:48 pm
Yet another source of renewable energy in case our fusion reactor research comes to nothing.
Canadians found out that this particular source of ‘free electricity’ was very expensive:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/sun_darkness.html
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 23, 2011 at 1:00 am
You are adding confusion by showing such a large difference between NOAA and SIDC. This has in the past sometimes been interpreted as sign of something fishy going on. No confusion will arise if you state that for comparison reasons, the two counts have been brought to the same scale. Every reasonable person would do this. The US temperatures are officially published in F, the rest of the world in C. I have never seen them plotted on the same graph and don’t think it would reasonable to do so.
This is not a matter of scales. A sunspot count is a sunspot count, most people take it on face value and do not consider there may be discount values involved that are required to meet the old standards that go back 400 years. NOAA do not discount therefore they move away from the past. You are ducking the issue, you need to adjust your graphs to align with your own logic.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 23, 2011 at 1:08 am
I’m working on trying to convince SIDC to use the real uncorrected Wolf-style numbers [as NOAA already does],
Crazy stuff. I cant believe you would take this tack. You also wish to move away from the recognized sunspot record. I don’t like your chances.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 23, 2011 at 1:08 am
BTW, I was just in Switzerland to observe with Wolf’s original 80mm telescope and also with the tiny 40mm handheld. I’ll put some photos of those on my site, soon. I also visited Sergio Cortesi in Locarno. Great guy. Although he uses a 150mm refractor he has it stepped down to 80mm [with suitable piece of cardboard], to improve the contrast [you see more with 80mm than with 150mm].
The photo’s will be interesting but will not give a perspective of what is visible to the naked eye. Very interesting news from Cortesi, is the stopping down of 150mm to 80mm used by all observers on all days at Locarno? This has not been mentioned in their yearly reports. The image is definitely clearer at reduced aperture or magnification but I would not say you can see more. I easily compare this with my 70mm and 110mm apertures.
MattN says: January 22, 2011 at 2:47 pm
Northern Exposure says: January 22, 2011 at 9:02 pm
well, Anthony has already given us hints for upgrading our PC’s when we laugh said cappuchions all over them.
Congratulations, Anthony, your solar halo is showing 🙂
vukcevic says:
January 23, 2011 at 1:45 am
Axial is not local. Axial definition : located on, around , or in the direction of an axis.
Recent observations indicate that magnetic field lines of magnetic clouds do remain connected to the Sun [Larson et al., 1997].
Of course, that idea goes back 40 years.
Now, think about it: In your distorted view, the loop starts at the surface of the Sun goes out way past the planets and returns to the Sun. This is a net current, you say, so some process at the Sun is pumping electrons [or do you think that should be the much heavier protons] into the loop for many weeks or months [the loop lives that long], although the CME only last a few hours, the currents goes on and on. The particles travel away from the Sun along the loop [while the solar wind and indeed the loop expand radially] and bend around at great distances [the loop has been wound around the sun several times by now] in order to return to the sun along the loop.
Geoff Sharp says:
January 23, 2011 at 1:46 am
NOAA do not discount therefore they move away from the past.
Wolf did not discount. We are just returning to Wolf’s way.
Very interesting news from Cortesi, is the stopping down of 150mm to 80mm used by all observers on all days at Locarno?
The piece of cardboard has been in there for decades.
This has not been mentioned in their yearly reports. The image is definitely clearer at reduced aperture or magnification but I would not say you can see more.
I’ll defer to Sergio.
vukcevic says:
January 23, 2011 at 1:45 am
Sun – Jupiter – Saturn – Heliosphere : One billion Amps, 10^24 – 10^33 Joules
Polar Field Strength here …
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
Anthony
I maintain an up to date (year 2000 onwards, so higher resolution, more details) Polar Field Strength graph derived from the WSO data:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 23, 2011 at 2:54 am
Geoff Sharp says:
January 23, 2011 at 1:46 am
NOAA do not discount therefore they move away from the past.
Wolf did not discount. We are just returning to Wolf’s way.
Simple answer which you well know, Wolf had a threshold. Wolfer changed the rules and counted every speck and discounted by 0.6 to align with Wolf. Do you think we are stupid? SIDC induce the 0.6 factor to align with Wolf, even though you and they know the huge 22% introduced by Waldmeier further escalates the upward trend from Wolfer. You are not credible.
Very interesting news from Cortesi, is the stopping down of 150mm to 80mm used by all observers on all days at Locarno?
The piece of cardboard has been in there for decades.
We might need some proof of this. But if so it will only remove the aperture discussion…show us your data.
Geoff Sharp says: January 23, 2011 at 1:46 am
This is not a matter of scales. A sunspot count is a sunspot count, most people take it on face value and do not consider there may be discount values involved that are required to meet the old standards that go back 400 years. NOAA do not discount therefore they move away from the past.
I am one of those people that have taken it on face value… first I got misled… then I got confused… and finally I arrived at sceptical and suspicious. The Layman’s Count image brings this all together so that I can view the sunspot counts in their historic context. The NOAA Monthly x 0.6 is a great addition. Thank you Geoff.
Leif Svalgaard says: January 23, 2011 at 1:08 am
I’m working on trying to convince SIDC to use the real uncorrected Wolf-style numbers [as NOAA already does]
Thank you Leif for your TSI-F10.7-MF-SSN-Solar Activity Plot which brings so much into perspective… it is a wonderful graphic and part of my daily routine… but I do have to refer to the Layman’s Count to help me keep the sun spot count in perspective 🙂
Anthony Watts says: January 22, 2011 at 10:40 pm
I think it would help NOAA begin to see the light. You’d be surprised how many times things that have been done here end up being changed at NOAA.
Thank you Anthony… WUWT is amazing… and the new additions to your Solar Images and Data Page are wonderful.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 23, 2011 at 1:00 am
I am still awaiting your response why you will not adjust your own graphs that use the NOAA unadjusted values. Time to man up again.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 23, 2011 at 2:54 am
……………
Feedback: It may be as simple as this: if magnetic cloud hits large magnetosphere energy is taken out of it ( it contains one billion Amps, 10^24 -10^30 Joules; the Earth’s take is usually 650,000A or 10^14 Joules http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/203795main_FluxPower_400.jpg )
and shuts down magnetic connection sooner than if it didn’t hit anything, since:
Recent observations indicate that magnetic field lines of magnetic clouds do remain connected to the Sun [Larson et al., 1997].
http://wwwppd.nrl.navy.mil/prediction/storms.html
….that the electrical current and the magnetic field are parallel and proportional in strength everywhere within its volume.
http://www.ann-geophys.net/24/215/2006/angeo-24-215-2006.pdf
Nasa shows loop engulfs major magnetospheres, and goes all the way to heliopause:
heavier particles move forward
http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/view_picture.asp?id=910
(orange shading) but ‘the electrical current and the magnetic field are parallel and proportional in strength everywhere within its volume’ ‘of magnetic clouds do remain connected to the Sun’ as quoted above.
Has any person / organization / etc done some recent work on the polar ice caps of Mars and the other planets. In view of the quiet sun, it would be interesting to know if they are growing again. And if I missed such a posting….ooops.
Thanks Anthony. Looking forward to checking the new page out.
vukcevic says:
January 23, 2011 at 4:21 am
No way. The water tight divisions between “specialties” will have to be overcome by the new generations.
The word “University” comes from Latin for UNIVERSITAS, abstract name formed upon the adjective UNIVERSUS-A-UM (“all”,”whole”, “universal”), derived from UNUS-A-UM (“one”).
Thank you Anthony!!
Your “Solar images and data page,” is FAROUT and Solid. haha
In the next few years, as this solar minimum progresses, there will be many more new sun followers to appreciate this one stop solar data and images page.
Maybe for future..a more terrestrial spaceweather data page..magnetosphere simulations, aurora oval and the like.
Vuks, thanks for the links. Particularly liked that CME video propagating out to the edge. woo woo
Little by little pieces fall together. Did you see the article from Florida about the N. magnetic pole? Article said it’s moving at 40 km per year back to Siberia? Thought is was 20 km per year? Ah how did I miss that when did that change? You don’t have to answer just thinking out loud.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 23, 2011 at 1:08 am
Geoff Sharp says:
January 23, 2011 at 12:55 am
If we follow your logic Leif, it stands to reason that you must adjust your SOURCE graphs that display the NOAA unadjusted sunspot values as a preference with the SIDC adjusted values hardly visible?
I’m working on trying to convince SIDC to use the real uncorrected Wolf-style numbers [as NOAA already does], so I’m biased towards showing the real count, rather than goofy adjusted one. You could, actually, adopt the same strategy. Or at least show the unadjusted NOAA with tiny hardly visible symbols and line [assuming you are biased towards SIDC – I personally prefer the true Wolf numbers]
BTW, I was just in Switzerland to observe with Wolf’s original 80mm telescope and also with the tiny 40mm handheld. I’ll put some photos of those on my site, soon. I also visited Sergio Cortesi in Locarno. Great guy. Although he uses a 150mm refractor he has it stepped down to 80mm [with suitable piece of cardboard], to improve the contrast [you see more with 80mm than with 150mm].
~
Cool Leif, excellent adventures..
Leif, possible you have that aurora oval link handy. Had it and ..hmmm where did it go?
Joe Bastardi has some interesting info concerning the last 4 years and the negative PDO and ENSO. What is interesting is the period of 1973-1978, which saw a double La Nina (73-75) followed by a moderate to strong El Nino (75-77, the Great Pacific Climate Shift). The years 1976-78 saw intensely hot Northern Hemisphere Summers and intensely cold Winters. The period we’re seeing now compares to the 1974-78 analogs. The current La Nina will probably last through most of 2011 with a evolution towards El Nino in 2012. In other words the 2011-2013 will be even colder than this winter.
But Joe under forecasted temps for the current winter. No one forecasted the high negative temp anomalies for the Southern US forecast for the boreal winter.
Geoff Sharp says:
January 23, 2011 at 3:49 am
Simple answer which you well know, Wolf had a threshold. Wolfer changed the rules and counted every speck and discounted by 0.6 to align with Wolf. Do you think we are stupid?
You make a good impression of one.
Wolfer changed the rules for the better. The Wolfer way is better than the undefined and not-reproducible threshold [every serious observer agree on this]. The way to deal with the changed rules is to multiply all numbers [1610-2011] by 1.67, then multiply [again] all numbers before ~1947 by 1.20. The resulting series should then be compatible with NOAA’s and we can dispense with the 0.6 nonsense, and there will be no confusion anymore. Friedli has for many years observed with the 40mm handheld telescope and the specks and small pores are simply not visible with that, so there is an automatic threshold build-in simply because of the smaller scope. He quotes a k-factor of 1 for the scope, which should bring him right on the Wolf scale.
Very interesting news from Cortesi, is the stopping down of 150mm to 80mm used by all observers on all days at Locarno?
The piece of cardboard has been in there for decades.
We might need some proof of this. But if so it will only remove the aperture discussion…show us your data.
The proof is what Cortesi [through me] tells you. We don’t care what you think about this, but that is the way it is and has always been. [many other observers do the same for a very good reason – it improves the contrast].
Geoff Sharp says:
January 23, 2011 at 3:56 am
I am still awaiting your response why you will not adjust your own graphs that use the NOAA unadjusted values. Time to man up again.
I do. They show the NOAA unadjusted, as should be at the level of the final, historical, correct, useful sunspot number series for everybody to use.
vukcevic says:
January 23, 2011 at 4:21 am
Feedback: It may be as simple as this: if magnetic cloud hits large magnetosphere energy is taken out of it ( it contains one billion Amps, 10^24 -10^30 Joules; the Earth’s take is usually 650,000A or 10^14 Joules
Try to calculate the total power and and you will see that it is much bigger. Furthermore dissipating power that far away from the sun has no ‘back effect’. The wind is 11 times supersonic.
Anthony, you inspire one of most interesting scientific teams debating on WUWT. The vigorous back and forth must affect at least the clarity of the research as well as informing us what the researchers mean, what they are up to, and why. Mine can only be a non-science perspective — wish I could do the maths and know how they do or do not verify experiment-theory, but my time budget must go elsewhere (even if I had the mind to do it). Even from here, this site has greatness written all over it. Thanks for commitment to the scientific method and attracting those who are its proponents and practicioners. It is delightfully warm here today.
pyromancer76 says:
January 23, 2011 at 9:47 am
attracting those who are its proponents and practicioners.
Even the ones that have no credibility?:
Geoff Sharp says: You are not credible.
vukcevic says:
January 23, 2011 at 1:45 am
Recent observations indicate that magnetic field lines of magnetic clouds do remain connected to the Sun [Larson et al., 1997].
Of course, that idea goes back 40 years.
I need you to respond to the following interpretation of what you believe:
The loop starts at the surface of the Sun goes out way past the planets and returns to the Sun. This is a net current, you say, so some process at the Sun is pumping electrons [or do you think that should be the much heavier protons] into the loop for many weeks or months [the loop lives that long], although the CME only last a few hours, the currents goes on and on, eventually from solar activity that has long died. The particles travel away from the Sun along the loop [while the solar wind and indeed the loop expand radially] and bend around at great distances [the loop has been wound around the sun several times by now] in order to return to the sun along the loop.
Is this what you believe?
If not, describe in your own words what it is.
Leif and Geoff…
Dudes, while you are arguing… nothing gets done.
I’d be racing to see who can provide the adjusted plot first.
Just saying.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 23, 2011 at 9:38 am
The way to deal with the changed rules is to multiply all numbers [1610-2011] by 1.67, then multiply [again] all numbers before ~1947 by 1.20.
I would be equally satisfied with dividing all number after 1947 by 1.2 rather than raising the old numbers. Since NOAA now seems to have settled in to 1.6 of SIDC, we maintain agreement with NOAA by raising the pre-1947 numbers. Scientifically it makes no difference which way we do it, so practical considerations will take precedence.
Anthony Watts says:
January 23, 2011 at 10:48 am
Dudes, while you are arguing… nothing gets done.
since my plots is already on the Wolf scale [NOAA’s], I don’t need to change anything. I keep the SIDC data as ‘fly dirt’ only to see how it behaves. NOAA is king.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 23, 2011 at 9:38 am
…………………
That is a false interpretation.
Hironori Shimazua,b,c, MotohikoTanaka: A flux rope requires a large electric current to maintain its magnetic field…the flux rope is maintained only by the electron current. This assumption is reasonable because the proton current alone cannot make a structure smaller than the proton cyclotron radius. Protons are assumed to have no bulk drift except for thermal motion….In the initial equilibrium, the electrons move along the magnetic field lines, and this electric current generates the magnetic field of the flux rope.
A.A. van Ballegooijen, E.E. DeLuca: The high conductivity of plasma implies that the electric currents can be maintained for a long period of time.
Implication is that electric current / magnetic field are still connected to the Sun, even if mass ejection has stopped some time before, and ejected mass of heavier particles may have moved some distance: as in this illustration : (orange shaded area)
http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/pictures/Sept09/Fig8_7.MagCloud.gif
During an impact with a magnetosphere the above electric current / magnetic field will be affected, and since they are still attached to the Sun, feedback will arise.
One thing is clear: you do not differentiate between electrons drift and the associated electric/magnetic field propagation.
Anthony, now go play with your kids! And thanks for the solar page! It’s awesome!
vukcevic says:
January 23, 2011 at 10:59 am
That is a false interpretation.
I asked what your interpretation was and tried to describe what it looked like. You now say it is false…
Implication is that electric current / magnetic field are still connected to the Sun,
An electric current is the movements of charges, so the charges are still removed from the sun at all times [months] by some process, right?
One thing is clear: you do not differentiate between electrons drift and the associated electric/magnetic field propagation.
Explain to me what the difference is?
vukcevic says:
January 23, 2011 at 10:59 am
During an impact with a magnetosphere the above electric current / magnetic field will be affected, and since they are still attached to the Sun, feedback will arise.
Changes in the fields propagate through the plasma with the Alfven speed, about 40 km/sec while the plasma is moving away from the sun at 440 km/sec, therefore can never reach the Sun.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 23, 2011 at 9:38 am
Furthermore dissipating power that far away from the sun has no ‘back effect’. The wind is 11 times supersonic.
As you keep telling us it is also very tenuous with only a relatively few particles per cubic meter. How would that stop something going the other way? Couldnt something moving the opposite way simply miss the oncoming particles by the laws of chance?
tallbloke says:
January 23, 2011 at 11:17 am
As you keep telling us it is also very tenuous with only a relatively few particles per cubic meter. How would that stop something going the other way? Couldnt something moving the opposite way simply miss the oncoming particles by the laws of chance?
The solar wind is effectively collisionless. The average distance between direct collisions is larger than 1 AU. The plasma, however, has a magnetic field and that means that disturbances can propagate even without collisions. Imagine two magnets at some distance from each other: moving one of them will exert a magnetic force on the other.
Geoff has updated his graph.
Good for him!
Anthony Watts says:
January 23, 2011 at 11:25 am
Geoff has updated his graph.
Good for him!
No, he still shows Fahrenheit and Centigrade on the same plot. He should remove the un-adjusted NOAA graph or plot it as ‘fly dirt’ so it is very inconspicuous. I don’t think I’ll live to see that done.
Geoff Sharp says:
January 23, 2011 at 3:56 am
I am still awaiting your response why you will not adjust your own graphs that use the NOAA unadjusted values.
And I’m still awaiting your plot of F10.7 and SSN for the minimum 20 years ago [this one: http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20and%20SSN%202.png ]
As you say: Time to man up
Terrific resource, thanks Anthony.
Right, time to find my passport…
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 23, 2011 at 11:10 am
……………
You got all that wrong !
1.Watch this NASA video
2. I suspected for some time that you do not (or whish not) to understand electric currents.
3. Read two quotes (in italics) from my previous post:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/22/new-wuwt-solar-images-and-data-page/#comment-581271
Electric current for its propagation will utilise any electrons (solar wind etc) that happen to be in path of highest conductivity/lowest resistance (solar wind you say is of near infinite conductivity, very low resistance). While mass ejection lasts (for few hours) the current will start and close at the CME’s origin, but as mass ejection ends the current loop becomes independent from its initial location, so wrapping may end , as long there are enogh electrons in corona (to propagate electric field around the loop) current will flow (remember plasma has no resistance), force-free structure. The current will maintain the magnetic field within the loop:
Hironori Shimazua,b,c, MotohikoTanaka: A flux rope requires a large electric current to maintain its magnetic field…the flux rope is maintained only by the electron current.
A.A. van Ballegooijen, E.E. DeLuca: The high conductivity of plasma implies that the electric currents can be maintained for a long period of time.
The whole process, from a single CME, may lasts for some months, until CME hits heliopause
http://www.archive.org/details/CIL-10037or as in NASA’s
or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZZr9TF1qI0
Sorry link got corrupted, it should be:
http://www.archive.org/details/CIL-10037
Ok, since we have a number of sun guru’s here…. I’d be very interested in opinions on how much cosmic ray increase (or any other aspects of interest) that we might see if Betelgeuse were to go supernova? Thanks in advance for any input!
vukcevic says:
January 23, 2011 at 12:55 pm
While mass ejection lasts (for few hours) the current will start and close at the CME’s origin, but as mass ejection ends the current loop becomes independent from its initial location, so wrapping may end , as long there are enogh electrons in corona (to propagate electric field around the loop) current will flow (remember plasma has no resistance), force-free structure. The current will maintain the magnetic field within the loop
You are beginning to see the light. The current is local to the loop and is no longer flowing from its initial location. The situation is the same as for the HCS. It persists indefinitely, but does not mean that there is a global current driven by an emf or a battery. The magnetic field structure locally maintains the current which in turn maintains the magnetic field. There is no stream of electrons [current] flowing from one foot point of the loop on the Sun, then along the loop to the other foot point on the Sun, flowing for months.
You still have this to explain:
One thing is clear: you do not differentiate between electrons drift and the associated electric/magnetic field propagation.
Explain to me what the difference is?
Rational Debate says:
January 23, 2011 at 4:20 pm
I’d be very interested in opinions on how much cosmic ray increase (or any other aspects of interest) that we might see if Betelgeuse were to go supernova?
Here is a pointer:
http://www.pnas.org/content/92/1/235.full.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 23, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Rational Debate says:
January 23, 2011 at 4:20 pm
I’d be very interested in opinions on how much cosmic ray increase (or any other aspects of interest) that we might see if Betelgeuse were to go supernova?
Here is a pointer:
http://www.pnas.org/content/92/1/235.full.pdf
======
If we were to see it, it would have went supernova about 640 years ago (per Wikipedia). The pictures of our sun we recieve are about 8 minutes old.
Hello Leif
I am trying to understand any events that may impact Earth’s magnetosphere. Do I have the following events correctly classified?:
Cosmic – X-ray Pulsar:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=007-R6yVngU
Solar – Coronal Mass Ejection:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDZj1CmsJ64&feature=related
Solar – Magnetosphere Breach
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVqWH5Qlg8Y&feature=related
Are there any other significant events that impact the magnetosphere, which I should be considering?
Just The Facts says:
January 23, 2011 at 7:02 pm
trying to understand any events that may impact Earth’s magnetosphere. Do I have the following events correctly classified?
The X-rays and gamma rays do not have any direct influence on the magnetosphere [as they are just photons of light]. The other ones are OK.
Good grief there at it again!!!
LOL A!
Anthony Watts says:
January 23, 2011 at 10:48 am
Leif and Geoff…
Dudes, while you are arguing… nothing gets done.
I’d be racing to see who can provide the adjusted plot first.
Just saying.
Mee too!
Tim L says:
January 23, 2011 at 8:42 pm
“Just saying.”
Mee too!
And what is the substance in ‘just saying’?
What is it precisely you are saying? and what does that bring to the table?
We went through that whole shebang back here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/30/sunspots-at-high-detail-now-available-from-sdo-what-will-this-do-to-the-sunspot-count/
It seems that nobody has learned anything in the meantime.
Leif Svalgaard says: January 23, 2011 at 8:36 pm
“The X-rays and gamma rays do not have any direct influence on the magnetosphere [as they are just photons of light].”
I’m confused. Per this article;
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=44558
it appears that Magnetar 1E 1547.0-5408 emitted some “magnetically-powered bursts” that impacted Earth’s Magnetosphere between Jan 2oth and 25th. If not gamma rays or X-rays then what were they, Radio Waves?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=007-R6yVngU
Just The Facts says:
January 23, 2011 at 10:03 pm
I’m confused. Per this article;
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=44558
it appears that Magnetar 1E 1547.0-5408 emitted some “magnetically-powered bursts”
The magnetic power source was at the magnetar. What hits us are photons, not magnetism.
Just The Facts says:
January 23, 2011 at 10:03 pm
emitted some “magnetically-powered bursts” that impacted Earth’s Magnetosphere between Jan 2oth and 25th.
Nothing impacted the Magnetosphere between Jan 20-25, 2009:
http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=2009,1,1
To differentiate between electrons drift and the associated electric/magnetic field propagation, is first thing all students at the Electrothechnic Faculty had to learn.
http://i392.photobucket.com/albums/pp6/SerbianCulture/Serbian%20Architecture/etf_001.jpg
Notice statue of Nikola Tesla.
Now you accepted
Hironori Shimazua,b,c, MotohikoTanaka: A flux rope requires a large electric current to maintain its magnetic field…
As far as feedback is concerned there is one more thing to learn at that is:
As the current flows in a loop Sun –flux tube (skimming magnetosphere) –Sun there is a feedback, regardless where is the corona’s bit.
vukcevic says:
January 24, 2011 at 12:39 am
To differentiate between electrons drift and the associated electric/magnetic field propagation, is first thing all students at the Electrothechnic Faculty had to learn.
So explain what you have learned so that everybody here can understand it.
As far as feedback is concerned there is one more thing to learn at that is:
As the current flows in a loop Sun –flux tube (skimming magnetosphere) –Sun there is a feedback, regardless where is the corona’s bit.
So, explain the feedback mechanism.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 23, 2011 at 10:34 pm
Just The Facts says:
January 23, 2011 at 10:03 pm
I’m confused. Per this article;
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=44558
it appears that Magnetar 1E 1547.0-5408 emitted some “magnetically-powered bursts”
The magnetic power source was at the magnetar. What hits us are photons, not magnetism.
~
Just the facts.. if you really really want to know..try this article page 5 ..table of documented SST’s from the early 50’s to 1978 both major and minor SST’s. Mostly occur between mid Nov. and March. You may want to note that the earth enters and orbits the downwind side (gas pile up) of the solar gravitational focusing cone, during those months. Some of the youtube videos Chris had posted showed wild fluctuations in the magnetopause position, indicating strong dayside reconnection and possibly setting up the equatorial atmosphere for the waves, that most of the articles I have seen imply are causing SSTs.
I did a go round with Dr. S. a few years back on this..got my knuckles wrapped with his nonsense ruler too ouch..
vukcevic says:
January 24, 2011 at 12:39 am
~
Don’t lose site of the gravitational focusing cone in all this Vuks. I think were going to need it.
Maybe a break Vuks. Watched Andy Jackson’s presentation yet?
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm10/lectures/lecture_videos/GP43C.shtml
Field lines in and field lines out, matching patches north and south. As I watched his field time lapse..tried to see what the toroidal field role was..maybe you can better than I.
Thanks Leif, keeping us on the tracks, we don’t always like it though.
Just the facts oops forgot the link.
Stratospheric Warmings: Observations and Theory
MARK R. SCHOEBERL
http://www.leif.org/EOS/RG016i004p00521.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 24, 2011 at 2:14 am
……………..
Re electron drift vs. field propagation:
You learned your electrons in the shadow of Niles Bohr, the genius of the orbiting particles, I learned my electro-magnetic fields in the shadow of another genius, Nikola Tesla.
Re feedback:
Why not have some fun by calculating round trip of the Alfven wave to distant reaches of the heliosphere and back.
Leif Svalgaard says: January 23, 2011 at 10:41 pm
“Nothing impacted the Magnetosphere between Jan 20-25, 2009:
http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=2009,1,1”
Are you saying that I can’t trust everything I find on the internet…? 🙂
What about Jan 26th, 2009?:
http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/dimages/magneka/20090126.html
http://www3.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/movie/2009/test_6.20090126.avi
Solar wind was low, but the magnetosphere appears to have been buffeted and thoroughly contorted by something.
Also, I’ve honed my list a bit further, here is a list of solar events that may impact Earth’s magnetosphere:
Solar – Temporary Wind Decline:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/ast13dec99_1/
Solar – Coronal Holes
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/chole.html
Solar – Solar Energetic Particles (SEP)
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/sep.html
Solar – Coronal Mass Ejection:
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMF75BNJTF_index_0.html
http://www.ratedesi.com/video/v/8AuCE_NNEaM/Sun-Erupts-to-Life-Unleashes-a-Huge-CME-on-13-April-2010
Solar – Magnetosphere Breach:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/16dec_giantbreach/
Acceptable? Anything of importance that I’ve missed?
Carla says:
January 24, 2011 at 5:31 am
……….
Andy Jackson’s presentation : useful details , fertile ground for supporting my ‘outrages’ and ‘counter-science’ hypothesis.
Just The Facts says:
January 24, 2011 at 1:37 pm
~
Note the density and flopping around of the IMF in the movie.
http://www3.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/movie/2009/test_6.20090126.avi
Wish you had the magnetopause movie for the date in question, might be able to realize the wave. Wild fluctuations in the magnetopause position are keys to the wave. By wild I mean like from 3-5 Earth radii out off the charts 15Re and beyond. Now that’s a heck of a magnetopause wave wave . In the article on “The Day the Solar Wind Disappeared,” what happened to the magnetopause, Just the Facts?
One more question Just the Facts, why isn’t the Doc all worried about it?
Here’s a link to CCMC magnetopause daily movie.
http://ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/display/RT_t.cgi?page=mpause
If doc is still around; polar fields waste no time.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF-latest.gif
My formula is coming up trumps.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC-CETfiles.htm
Carla says: January 25, 2011 at 5:49 am
“Wish you had the magnetopause movie for the date in question, might be able to realize the wave. Wild fluctuations in the magnetopause position are keys to the wave. By wild I mean like from 3-5 Earth radii out off the charts 15Re and beyond. Now that’s a heck of a magnetopause wave wave.”
You can request a model run here;
http://ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov/models/modelinfo.php?model=OpenGGCM
http://ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov/requests/user_registration.php
though I’m not sure what it will get you.
Also, check out the wave that occurs at very end of 1/21/09:
http://www3.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/movie/2009/test_6.20090121.avi
What is that?
“In the article on “The Day the Solar Wind Disappeared,” what happened to the magnetopause, Just the Facts?”
Yes, “Earth’s magnetosphere swelled to five to six times its normal size”. Here’s NASA’s effort at animating it:
http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/1999/12/13/ast13dec99_1_resources/Solarwind.mov
“One more question Just the Facts, why isn’t the Doc all worried about it?”
Nothing to worry about, I am sure there are logical explanations for it all…
vukcevic says:
January 24, 2011 at 12:36 pm
I learned my electro-magnetic fields in the shadow of another genius, Nikola Tesla.
Who didn’t know about Alfven waves
Why not have some fun by calculating round trip of the Alfven wave to distant reaches of the heliosphere and back.
With your superior knowledge of physics this should be a snap for you. We are waiting for you to tell us.
Just The Facts says:
January 24, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Are you saying that I can’t trust everything I find on the internet…? 🙂
What about Jan 26th, 2009?
That was a recurring sector boundary going by.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 25, 2011 at 11:08 pm
……. calculating round trip of the Alfven wave to distant reaches of the heliosphere and back.
Just about to mach the Hale cycle (22-23 years), an interesting number don’t you think?
vukcevic says:
January 26, 2011 at 12:27 am
calculating round trip of the Alfven wave to distant reaches of the heliosphere and back. Just about to mach the Hale cycle (22-23 years), an interesting number don’t you think?
The Alfven speed is about a tenth of the solar wind speed, so since it takes the solar wind about a year to reach the heliopause, it should take an Alfven wave about ten times a long, and then double of for the return trip. The number is not interesting per se. Just one of those numerology things out there [e.g. apparent sizes of Sun and Moon are equal]. The time it takes for an Alfven wave to travel from a sunspot through the center of the Sun to the antipodal surface and back is also ~22 years.
Alfven wave to distant reaches of the heliosphere and back ~ 22 years
Alfven wave to through the centre of the Sun to the antipodal surface and back ~ 22 years.
Hale cycle ~ 22 years
Apparent sizes of Sun ~ apparent sizes of Moon .
You are not postulating ‘intelligent design’, are you?
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 26, 2011 at 2:27 am
vukcevic says:
January 26, 2011 at 12:27 am
~
Along those same lines, I’ve read that the system replenishes about every ’25’ years. I thought the number was interesting too.
~
Just The Facts says:
January 25, 2011 at 8:26 pm
~
Keep this in mind while watching those NICT simulations.
http://gse.gi.alaska.edu/recent/javascript_movie.html
Carla says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 26, 2011 at 5:06 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 26, 2011 at 2:27 am
vukcevic says:
January 26, 2011 at 12:27 am
~
Along those same lines, I’ve read that the system replenishes about every ’25′ years. I thought the number was interesting too.
~
Now you got me wondering what the new downloaded mix will be like this time around. I mean the size of the bubble is is smaller requiring less time to replenish (or whatever term works for you) and what the content ratios will be.
~
Just the Facts..
Along those same lines of SST and waves, been checking on something that may be of interest. Perhaps even the holy grail. But will need ‘lots’ of help for the deciphering. lol Picture a substorm onset and then a reversal, so its already going one way and then shear angle changes and flops and it goes the opposite way.
This old spiderwoman needs a song for the day..Fabulous Thunderbirds “Tuff Enuff”
vukcevic says:
January 26, 2011 at 4:13 am
You are not postulating ‘intelligent design’, are you?
Height of the Cheops pyramid is one nano AU. and more.
I’m proposing non-intelligent fascination by some of numerical coincidences without physical understanding.
An Alfven wave cannot make it upstream back to the Sun, because the medium of the wave moves away from the Sun ten times faster. Similarly, an Alfven waves moving away from the Sun is embedded in a medium moving ten times faster, so will not take ten years to reach the heliopause, but only one year.
Sorry Lief, but where is the datum from which the height of Cheops is measured, and how much error is there in the nanoAU?
Or are you just being facetious?
Keith Battye says:
January 26, 2011 at 5:31 am
Sorry Leif, but where is the datum from which the height of Cheops is measured, and how much error is there in the nanoAU?
The current height is 140 m, but the top 10 meters have been lost, so the height could have been 150 which is close to 1 nanoAU=149.6 m. For true believers of numerology this difference is either not significant, or else extremely important as it shows that the distance to the sun has changed since the pyramid was built. Perhaps powerful electromagnetic zaps from the universe has a finger in this. Our local pseudo-scientists can surely find a suitable explanation. Vuk can surely explain how perhaps Jupiter shine can explain just about everything and Carla can find some interstellar gas that might even help fine tune the [e.g. file off by abrasion] height. All kinds of wonderful things are out there for people with a mind so open that their brain has fallen out.
Just the Facts meet,
Stefan Eriksson.
Research Interests
My research is focused on magnetospheric physics, such as magnetopause reconnection away from the subsolar region and the link between substorm onsets and tail reconnection. Whether antiparallel merging for dominant IMF By conditions may explain high-latitude lobe cell convection and the NBZ field-aligned current system in the polar cap is a particular focus. Whether slow-mode shocks are observed at times of near-Earth tail reconnection is also a recent focus as well as the analyses of solar wind reconnection events.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/~eriksson/
Ionospheric convection response to high-latitude reconnection and electrodynamics of a split-transpolar aurora (University of Leicester, 2006) [.ppt]
~
Just the idea of a split-transpolar aurora was interesting to me, not to mention magnetopause reconnection dayside. time to toast a bagel..lol
Leif Svalgaard says:
………..
Jupiter being supreme of the gods, at your age one should be duly respectful of his majestic powers.
vukcevic says:
January 26, 2011 at 6:50 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
………..
Jupiter being supreme of the gods, at your age one should be duly respectful of his majestic powers.
~
hahahahaha
By abrasion Leif, geesh never thought of that. Thanks for the tip Leif. I’ll work on it.
Did notice that you havn’t responded yet with the usual “we already knew that,” on that power point of Stefan Eriksson’s entitled:
Ionospheric convection response to high-latitude reconnection and electrodynamics of a split-transpolar aurora (University of Leicester, 2006) [.ppt]
http://lasp.colorado.edu/~eriksson/
One thing though, if you didn’t already know this, do man up and say so.
One other thing you can not ever ask is me to ah.. man up. Only thing I can find is one part of my brain that may at times have some semblance.
Carla says:
January 26, 2011 at 11:57 am
Stefan Eriksson’s entitled:
Ionospheric convection response to high-latitude reconnection and electrodynamics of a split-transpolar aurora
Eriksson is investigating the high-latitude response to reconnection. This is an effect that I discovered in 1968. Google: Svalgaard-Mansurov Effect
Leif Svalgaard says: January 25, 2011 at 11:08 pm
“That was a recurring sector boundary going by.”
That makes sense. Thanks.
good—morning—nasa—and–citizen—world
address–6/2.m.2–pakkred–nonthaburi—11120—-thailand———welcome–to—-thailand—-sincere———-thankyou——e–mail—montra_trimek@yahoo.co.th
Carla says: January 26, 2011 at 5:23 am
Thanks for the links and introduction.
“Perhaps even the holy grail.”
For good or bad, there is probably no grail, it’s too complex for that. I am still trying to wrap my head around it, but it is, and will remain for the foreseeable future, a work in progress:
1. Earth’s Rotational Energy;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_energy
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6h.html
which results in day and night;
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_rotation_cause_day_and_night
influences Oceanic Gyres;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_gyre
helps drive and direct the Thermohaline Circulation;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
especially around Antarctica;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Conveyor_belt.svg
which is also called the Antarctic Circumpolar Current;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Circumpolar_Current
and the Arctic:
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=441&cid=47170&ct=61&article=20727
http://www.john-daly.com/polar/flows.jpg
Earth’s Rotational Energy influences Atmospheric Circulation;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation
influences Earth’s Polar Vortices;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex
which “are caused when an area of low pressure sits at the rotation pole of a planet. This causes air to spiral down from higher in the atmosphere, like water going down a drain.”
http://www.universetoday.com/973/what-venus-and-saturn-have-in-common/
Here’s an animation of the Arctic Polar Vortex in Winter 2008 – 09;
here’s an animation of the currently uncoalesced Arctic Polar Vortex and;
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/z500_nh_anim.shtml
here’s an animation of the currently uncoalesced Antarctic Polar Vortex:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/z500_sh_anim.shtml
Earth’s Rotational Energy influences also influences Tropical Cyclones;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone
and Tornadoes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado
2. Earth’s Orbital Energy, Elliptical Orbit around the Sun, and Tilt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_orbital_energy
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6h.html
creates seasons;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season
which drives annual changes Arctic Sea Ice;
and Antarctic Sea Ice;
the freezing and melting of which helps to drive the Thermohaline Circulation;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
On longer time frames changes to Earth’s orbit, tilt and wobble called Milankovitch cycles;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
which may be responsible for the periods of Glaciation (Ice Ages);
http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm
that Earth has experienced for the last several million years of Earth’s climatic record:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
3. Gravitational Energy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_energy
The Moon and Sun have significant influence on Earth’s tide;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force
http://www.themcdonalds.net/richard/astro/papers/602-tides-web.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide
as well as the Moon, Sun and Earth’s gravity influences Earth’s Thermohaline Circulation;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection#Gravitational_or_buoyant_convection
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=205
during the different phases of the Saros cycle;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_cycle
which influences Oceanic Oscillations including El Nino/La Nina;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o-Southern_Oscillation
the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO);
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Decadal_Oscillation
the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation (AMO);
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Multidecadal_Oscillation
Indian_Ocean_Dipole (IOD)/Indian Ocean Oscillation (IOO)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ocean_Dipole
4. Solar Energy;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy
varies slightly based upon 11 and 22 year cycles;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle
causes evaporation;
creates clouds;
results rain;
that transfers large amounts of moisture;
and results in rivers, etc.;
and evaporation and condensation may help to drive changes in atmospheric pressure:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/10/24015/2010/acpd-10-24015-2010.pdf
UV;
tba
Solar – Wind;
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/ast13dec99_1/
Solar – Coronal Holes;
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/chole.html
Solar – Solar Energetic Particles (SEP);
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/sep.html
Solar – Coronal Mass Ejection;
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMF75BNJTF_index_0.html
http://www.ratedesi.com/video/v/8AuCE_NNEaM/Sun-Erupts-to-Life-Unleashes-a-Huge-CME-on-13-April-2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDZj1CmsJ64&feature=related
Solar Magnetosphere Breach;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVqWH5Qlg8Y&feature=related
Solar Polar Field Reversal;
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast15feb_1/
Solar Sector Boundary;
http://science.nasa.gov/heliophysics/focus-areas/magnetosphere-ionosphere/
5. Geothermal Energy;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy
especially when released by volcanoes;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano
which have been shown to influence Earth’s climate;
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
including in the infamous Year Without a Summer;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
which was partially caused by the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1815_eruption_of_Mount_Tambora
and is called a Volcanic Winter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter
6. Cosmic Forces;
Galactic Cosmic Rays;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_cosmic_ray
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/04/a-link-between-the-sun-cosmic-rays-aerosols-and-liquid-water-clouds-appears-to-exist-on-a-global-scale/
Galactic Magnetic Fields;
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Galactic_magnetic_fields
7. Magnetic Forces;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field
Solar – Above;
Earth Core Changes:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42580
including movement of Poles:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091224-north-pole-magnetic-russia-earth-core.html
8. Atmospheric Composition
Aerosols
Particulates
Greenhouse Gases
9. Albedo
tba
10. Anthropogenic
Increases in carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide,
changes in ozone concentrations and distribution,
increases in particulates and aerosols,
soot, land use changes,
urban heat islands, etc
General summaries of the potential variables involved in Earth’s climate system;
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7y.html
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/whatfactors.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 26, 2011 at 1:06 pm
Carla says:
January 26, 2011 at 11:57 am
Stefan Eriksson’s entitled:
Ionospheric convection response to high-latitude reconnection and electrodynamics of a split-transpolar aurora
Eriksson is investigating the high-latitude response to reconnection. This is an effect that I discovered in 1968. Google: Svalgaard-Mansurov Effect
~
Hmm already knew about dual polar arcs. One polar arc flowing one way and another polar arc flowing the other way? And you didn’t mention this before??? lol
“””Electrodynamics of a split-transpolar aurora
S. Eriksson,1 G. Provan,2 F. J. Rich,3 M. Lester,2 S. E. Milan,2 S. Massetti,4 J. T. Gosling,1
M. W. Dunlop,5 and H. Re`me6
Received 14 July 2006; accepted 21 September 2006; published 23 November 2006.
1. Introduction
..[2] Single and multiple auroral arcs are often observed at
very high latitudes during northward interplanetary magnetic
field (IMF) conditions [Lassen and Danielsen, 1978;
Burke et al., 1982; Carlson et al., 1988; Valladares et al.,
1994]. Such arcs are generally aligned in the Sun-Earth
direction and they are typically caused by precipitating
electrons with <2 keV average energy. In the literature they
are referred to as Sun-aligned arcs, polar cap arcs, transpolar
arcs (TPA), or theta aurora. Burch et al. [1979] first reported
that polar arcs occur at flow shears where the corresponding
dawn-dusk convective electric field points toward the center
of the electron acceleration region. Subsequent reports have
confirmed that the arcs typically coincide with a localized
upward field-aligned current (FAC) sheet at a flow shear
with a converging electric field [Burke et al., 1982; Carlson
et al., 1988; Obara et al., 1993; Carlson and Cowley, 2005].
..[21] The split-TPA feature also appears to be consistent
with the physics contained in the Zhu et al. [1993] M-I
coupling model of multiple polar arcs. However, the main
difference between this model and the 14 February 2003
split-TPA event is related to the initial state and the
subsequent evolution of the dual-arc system. The split-
TPA and the mesoscale structure observed by DMSP F13
evolved as a bifurcation of a preexisting large-scale TPA
[see also Craven et al., 1991] and the transverse width of
the split-TPA was comparable to the width of the original
TPA. The Zhu et al. [1993] model, however, gradually
evolves from one mesoscale primary arc into multiple arcs
distributed over an increasingly wider region until a steady
state width is achieved. In summary, although a local
Pedersen current closure requirement probably determines
the width of the intermediate downward current region, we
still need to understand what initiates the development of a
downward current at the center of the primary TPA in the
first place if we assume that the TPA coincided with an
initial large-scale upward FAC."""
http://lasp.colorado.edu/~eriksson/2006JA011976_eriksson.pdf
Maybe you can help them out here. Read the last line from the above pdf. Man o Man an existing auroral arc splits into two with different rotation. oops sorry just filing away. Like what is the effect of the polar vortex when the split occurs. What is the effect on the earth system period. Must have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed.
Just the facts what do you got on gravitational fields and magnetic forcing? Just think out loud again.
late
Paging the Vuks,
And what do dual arcs have to do with, dual northern patches where field lines go in?
Carla says:
January 27, 2011 at 5:54 am
Hmm already knew about dual polar arcs. One polar arc flowing one way and another polar arc flowing the other way? And you didn’t mention this before???
The cross-polar cap arcs were discovered by my thesis advisor Knud Lassen in the 1950s. Which way they flow is determined by the Y-component of the IMF [Svalgaard-Mansurov Effect]. There is nothing fundamentally new in any of this. Of course, more details are becoming known and, as always, the picture is becoming a bit more complicated, but those arcs don’t have any other effects than just illuminating the sky. There are lots of things I know that I haven’t mentioned before 🙂
Carla says: January 27, 2011 at 5:54 am
“Just the facts what do you got on gravitational fields and magnetic forcing?”
I have to do some more homework in those areas, but first I need to build a few pages…