UPDATE: Leif Svalgaard provides us a magnetic movie (SDO HMI) which I’ve also converted and added below. It’s a real treat too.
This is truly an impressive animation from the folks at the Solar Dynamics Observatory. I’ve converted it to YouTube so more people can watch it. It shows the 5 day time lapse formation of massive sunspot group 1158 from nothing. What’s neat is how the perspective is maintained. I’ve never seen anything quite like this. Less than a week ago, sunspot 1158 didn’t exist. Now it is wider than the planet Jupiter and unleashing the strongest solar flares since December 13th, 2006, including an X-class solar flare that we covered here first on WUWT. Video below.
Solar Magnetics Movie
The HMI (Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager) on the SDO (Solar Dynamics Observatory) caught massive sunspot group 1158 in the process of forming from nothing. It is quite an impressive animation. Animation courtesy of Dr. Phil Scherrer at Stanford via Dr. Leif Svalgaard who writes:
“What to note is how the magnetic field ‘bubbled’ up in a very mixed state [black=negative, white=positive polarity]. Then the two polarities separate and move to areas of like polarity: white to white and black to black, in the process assembling sunspots. Watch also how the incessant convection ‘eats’ away at the boundaries of large, mature spots [late in the clip].”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Just The Facts says:
February 18, 2011 at 11:47 am
“The CME has just hit the Earth. As predicted it starts out with northward field.”
It hit at 01:00 UT on Feb. 17. Since then several gusts have appeared. This is messy business.
Leif Svalgaard says:
It hit at 01:00 UT on Feb. 17.
Sorry, on Feb. 18
Leif Svalgaard says: February 18, 2011 at 1:18 pm
“This is messy business.”
Yes, still so much to be learned and discovered. That’s what makes it all so interesting. We are playing on the outer bounds of human knowledge. I am particularly curious to see if the CME’s impact on the Magnetosphere has a measurable impact on Atmospheric Circulation and Vorticity. And it just so happens that I recently built an Atmosphere Reference Page to keep an eye on things:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/atmosphere/
Just The Facts says:
February 18, 2011 at 3:48 pm
I am particularly curious to see if the CME’s impact on the Magnetosphere has a measurable impact on Atmospheric Circulation and Vorticity.
Long time ago we thought so [ http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/255539a0.pdf ] Unfortunately, as with so many Sun-Weather-Climate relationships the signal seems to have disappeared, although it still has some supporter [e.g. Brian Tinsley].
Baa Humbug says:
February 16, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Very interesting, but can someone (Leif?) explain the ‘like’ polarities being attracted to each other please? I thought ‘like’ repelled and ‘unlike’ attracted in magnetism.
Possibly Ampere’s pbservation that parallel currents flowing in the same direction attract each other, while currents flowing in opposite directions repel, applies here, to sunspots.
Zeke the Sneak says:
February 18, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Very interesting, but can someone (Leif?) explain the ‘like’ polarities being attracted to each other please? I thought ‘like’ repelled and ‘unlike’ attracted in magnetism.
Things are much more complicated in a plasma. The fields there are controlled by movements of the plasma, not by electric currents [which are by-products]. Ken Schatten has an explanation here: http://www.leif.org/research/Percolation%20and%20the%20Solar%20Dynamo.pdf The coalescence of like elements into sunspots is an observed fact.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 18, 2011 at 5:17 pm
“The fields there are controlled by movements of the plasma, not by electric currents [which are by-products].”
What I said is, that electric currents in two wires flowing in the same direction attract, and electric currents flowing in the opposite direction repel. This may explain the reason that these sunspots of like polarity experience long range attraction at different latitudes. (ref. Thornhill, Scott)
Your abstract does say it has a numerical model which fits some sunspot behavior, but not all. I need time to read the paper to see how modeled “percolation” is a better explanation than Ampere’s Circuital Law.
Zeke the Sneak says:
February 18, 2011 at 5:40 pm
What I said is, that electric currents in two wires flowing in the same direction attract, and electric currents flowing in the opposite direction repel. This may explain the reason that these sunspots of like polarity experience long range attraction at different latitudes. (ref. Thornhill, Scott)
Those two gentlemen don’t know what they are talking about. In the solar photosphere the plasma movements are not controlled by electric currents but by thermal convection. The controlling parameter is called the Plasma Beta: “Beta is a parameter indicating the relative importance of kinetic to electromagnetic phenomena”, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_(plasma_physics)
In the photosphere and below, beta is higher than one, so the plasma moves the fields around. In the corona, beta is lower than one so the magnetic fields control the plasma.
Leif Svalgaard says: February 18, 2011 at 4:14 pm
“Unfortunately, as with so many Sun-Weather-Climate relationships the signal seems to have disappeared”
I don’t know about “disappeared”, from what I’ve read thus far I’d call it not effectively measured. I don’t think the Vorticity Area Index as you describe it, “The vorticity area index is a measure of the size and prominence of all the low pressure troughs in the region of the Northern Hemisphere north of 20 ° N.” is an effective measure of the phenomenon I am looking for.
I think that if and when the polar voritices coalesce into a single funnel during the Polar Winter and when in the Spring the coalesced funnel breaks up/down are key measures of the polar vortices. According to this paper on the Final Warming Date of the Antarctic Polar Vortex and Influences on its Interannual Variability;
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7598/is_20091115/ai_n42654411/
“several studies (including Waugh and Randel 1999; Waugh et al. 1999; Karpetchko et al. 2005; Black and McDaniel 2007) have indicated a trend over the 1980s and 1990s toward a later vortex breakdown.”
This is a good paper exploring the Polar Vortices;
http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/waugh+polvani-PlumbFestVolume-2010.pdf
and the chart on page 10 shows the vortex break-up dates for the Northern Hemisphere since 1960 and Southern Hemisphere since 1979. Note that there appears to be a bit of disagreement in the literature as to whether the vortices break up or down, but either way, when it occurs, it seems to have a significant impact on Earth’s atmospheric circulation and oscillations. For example, this year the Arctic Polar Vortex does not appear to have coalesced yet;
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/z500_nh_anim.shtml
and thus the multiple lobes of the uncoalesced Polar Vortex have reached down to lower latitudes this year, similar to what occurred in 1985:
” The January 1985 Arctic outbreak[1] was a meteorological event, the result of the shifting of the polar vortex further south than is normally seen.[1] Blocked from its normal movement, polar air from the north pushed into nearly every section of the eastern half of the United States, shattering record lows in a number of states.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_1985_Arctic_outbreak
This paper summarizes some of the differences between having a coalesced and uncoalesed polar vortex:
http://www.ace.uwaterloo.ca/publications/Manney-ExtremeArcticWinters_ACP.pdf
“The first three Arctic winters of the ACE mission represented two extremes of winter variability: Stratospheric sudden warmings (SSWs) in 2004 and 2006 were among the strongest, most prolonged on record; 2005 was
a record cold winter.”
“Temperature and vortex evolution was very similar in the two years [2004 and 2006], with the vortex breaking down throughout the stratosphere, reforming quickly in the upper stratosphere, while remaining weak in the middle and (especially) lower stratosphere.”
“2005 was the coldest winter on record in the lower stratosphere, but with an early final warming in mid-March.”
“Disparate temperature profile structure and vortex evolution resulted in much lower (higher) temperatures in the upper (lower) stratosphere in 2004 and 2006 than in 2005. Satellite temperatures agree well with lidar data up to 50–60 km, and ACE-FTS, MLS and SABER show good agreement in high-latitude temperatures throughout the winters. Consistent with a strong, cold upper stratospheric vortex and enhanced radiative cooling after the SSWs, MLS and ACE-FTS trace gas measurements show strongly enhanced descent in the upper stratospheric vortex in late January through March 2006 compared to that in 2005.”
This paper from Kniveton and Tinsley discusses the “Daily changes in global cloud cover and Earth transits of the heliospheric current sheet”:
https://www.utdallas.edu/nsm/physics/pdf/tin_dcgcc.pdf
E.M.Smith has had some interesting speculation in the area as well:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/drakes-passage/
This article states that polar vortices “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/I
thus tonight I did a simple test in my kitchen sink. I filled it with water, pulled the plug, turned on the garbage disposal to add some vorticity and then right as the vortex was forming I hit the water to create a wave. The wave broke up the vortex. Rudimentary, but a basic proof of concept. My question is whether a CME, Solar Sector Boundary, a combination thereof, or other solar phenomenon, could sufficiently disturb and disrupt the magnetosphere as to precipitate the break up/down of a polar vortex.
“although it still has some supporter [e.g. Brian Tinsley].”
Yes, amusingly, on September 30, 2009 at 2:56 pm I wrote to you:
“Are you familiar with Brian Tinsley?
http://www.utdallas.edu/nsm/physics/faculty/tinsley.html
I feel like you and Brian might be able to sort all this out over a couple beers…”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/29/nasa-cosmic-rays-up-19-since-last-peak-new-record-high/#comment-195980
You responded that;
“Yes, Brian is a good friend of mine. The first paper you referenced is based on early work by Wilcox, myself, and others.
He is still working on an effect that I have abandoned long ago.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/29/nasa-cosmic-rays-up-19-since-last-peak-new-record-high/#comment-196004
Can you forward this thread to Brian and ask him if he might want to comment? I would be most interested to hear his thoughts on the subject and would be happy to buy the beers… 🙂
Just The Facts says:
February 18, 2011 at 8:19 pm
I don’t think the Vorticity Area Index as you describe it, “The vorticity area index is a measure of the size and prominence of all the low pressure troughs in the region of the Northern Hemisphere north of 20 ° N.” is an effective measure of the phenomenon I am looking for.
I think that the breakdown of the polar vortex is governed by upwards travelling waves and not by any influence from CMEs, flares, or other assorted solar stuff.
Ill contact Brian.
Just The Facts says:
February 18, 2011 at 8:19 pm
thus tonight I did a simple test in my kitchen sink. I filled it with water, pulled the plug, turned on the garbage disposal to add some vorticity and then right as the vortex was forming I hit the water to create a wave. The wave broke up the vortex. Rudimentary, but a basic proof of concept.
Indeed, but the waves come from below…
Here is the impact of the X class flare on Earth’s Magnetosphere – (February, 18th 2011 Magnetosphere Activity from the National Institute of Information and Communications Technology.)
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N0YfHOqFsY&w=480&h=390]
You should also download and watch the much higher resolution avi version, which is very cool:
http://www3.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/movie/2011/test_6.20110218.avi
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 18, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Schatten has an explanation here: http://www.leif.org/research/Percolation%20and%20the%20Solar%20Dynamo.pdf The coalescence of like elements into sunspots is an observed fact.
Models are nice. And I think that Schatten does an incredible job of comparing and contrasting different models (numeric & computer, deep & shallow dynamos, etc.). I think using Parker’s theory to develop a “percolation force” which can cause like polarities to attract is a must-read for those who like theoreticians performing truly incredible feats of explanatory gymnastics. See page 140 of the pdf.
An alternative is found in the simple Terrella experiments carried out by Kristian Birkeland in the early 1900’s. He put a positively charged magnetized sphere in a vacuum tank and directed a stream of electrons at it. This created a donut of circulating charge around it. With varying currents, discharges move from mid to low latitudes, looking very like sunspots.
Image of the Terrella: http://www.phy6.org/Educatcc/Figures/terr_vac.gif
Zeke the Sneak says:
February 18, 2011 at 9:40 pm
An alternative is found in the simple Terrella experiments carried out by Kristian Birkeland in the early 1900′s. He put a positively charged magnetized sphere in a vacuum tank and directed a stream of electrons at it.
The problem with this is that the image does not transfer. The Sun is not positively charged, and there is no stream of electrons from outer space impacting the Sun.
Leif Svalgaard says: February 18, 2011 at 9:01 pm
“I think that the breakdown of the polar vortex is governed by upwards travelling waves and not by any influence from CMEs, flares, or other assorted solar stuff.”
Can you provide some references to support this statement? I agree that there are a number of terrestrial influences on vortex formation, persistence and breakdown, but to exclude “any influence from CMEs, flares, or other assorted solar stuff.” seems a bit presumptuous given how little we know about the subject.
Fine. However, some people like experiments. And the sun does have a magnificent bright torus, or donut ring as shown in the SOHO UV images. This matches the torus found in Birkeland’s laboratory sphere.
http://www.google.com/images?rlz=1T4ADBF_en___US334&q=kristian%20birkeland%2C%20terrella%20experiment&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi
Leif Svalgaard says: February 18, 2011 at 9:14 pm
“Indeed, but the waves come from below…”
I agree that my kitchen sink vortex modeling system might not be a particularly accurate representation of earth’s climate system, however I do think that it helps to demonstrate that a shock to a nascent or weakening vortex that is near its critical state can result in vortex breakdown. And I also agree that there are certainly are waves from below Seismic waves, Electromagnetic waves and Ocean tides/upwellings/waves come to mind. However, I think Rosby waves and Tropospheric Planetary waves come as much from within as from below, and I don’t see any basis for excluding potential “above” wave sources such as solar and cosmic influences, e.g. Boundary layer waves, Alfvén waves, etc. What makes you think that the waves that influence the formation, persistence and breakdown of polar vortices (only) “come from below”?
Leif Svalgaard says: February 18, 2011 at 9:01 pm
“I think that the breakdown of the polar vortex is governed by upwards travelling waves”
Also, from a lexicon perspective, I find your statement that “breakdown”… “is governed by upwards travelling waves” confusing. Wouldn’t the process you refer to be better described as a break-up of the vortex? A solar or cosmic triggered top down vortex collapse would seem to be more a break-down. And when the vortex is disrupted from within the atmosphere or medium the vortex would break-apart.
Just The Facts says:
February 18, 2011 at 11:53 pm
What makes you think that the waves that influence the formation, persistence and breakdown of polar vortices (only) “come from below”?
The energies involved. Here is how the polar vortex works:
http://www.vets.ucar.edu/vg/PV/index.shtml
http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/users/isavelyev/GFD-2/Rossby%20waves.pdf
Zeke the Sneak says:
February 18, 2011 at 10:53 pm
Fine. However, some people like experiments. And the sun does have a magnificent bright torus, or donut ring as shown in the SOHO UV images. This matches the torus found in Birkeland’s laboratory sphere.
Like in Figure 7 in http://www.leif.org/research/A%20View%20of%20Solar%20Magnetic%20Fields,%20the%20Solar%20Corona,%20and%20the%20Solar%20Wind%20in%20Three%20Dimensions.pdf
But it is not formed by the same process, so, as I said, the image does no transfer. But some people refuse to learn; their loss.
Just The Facts says:
February 19, 2011 at 7:48 am
Also, from a lexicon perspective, I find your statement that “breakdown”… “is governed by upwards travelling waves” confusing.
I use the standard meteorological lingo. Not responsible for your confusion.
Leif Svalgaard says: February 19, 2011 at 8:28 am
“I use the standard meteorological lingo.”
The following quotes are from one of the papers I cited above; Stratospheric Polar Vortices by Darryn W. Waugh Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA and Lorenzo M. Polvani Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA Copyright 2010 by the American Geophysical Union:
“These studies have shown that there are significant trends in the springtime Antarctic vortex and that the vortex has become stronger, colder, and more persistent (i.e., breaks up later) since 1979; see Figure 8. The colder vortex and delay in breakup are attributed to…”
“(e.g., the breakup of the Arctic vortex shown in Figure 4 corresponds to a period when the NAM is around “3).”
http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/waugh+polvani-PlumbFestVolume-2010.pdf
I haven’t received the new handbook on “standard meteorological lingo”, but it seems that both breakup and breakdown are being used to describe the phenomenon. We might as well put some sense to it…
“Not responsible for your confusion.”
Yes you are. If we cannot effectively describe the phenomenon how are we supposed to effectively discuss and debate its behavior? My lexicon of up, down and apart is logical, why do you think your confusing “standard meteorological lingo” is better?
Leif Svalgaard says: February 19, 2011 at 7:52 am
“The energies involved.”
Which energies are not involved and can you demonstrate that they are not?
Just The Facts says:
February 19, 2011 at 9:37 am
but it seems that both breakup and breakdown are being used to describe the phenomenon. We might as well put some sense to it…
In breakup and breakdown, there is really no direction implied. Ice breaks up, cars break down. A google search on ‘polar vortex breakdown’ yields 151,000 hits. On ‘polar vortex breakup’ has only 13,800 hits. I rest my case.
Just The Facts says:
February 19, 2011 at 9:43 am
Leif Svalgaard says: February 19, 2011 at 7:52 am
Which energies are not involved and can you demonstrate that they are not?
too many ‘nots’ for my taste. But I can try to explain [may not succeed]. The energy involved in the upwards travelling waves are many, many orders of magnitude larger than the energy in anything coming down from above. Basically because of the difference in density of a factor north of a million.
Dr S, inre the terella experiments:
Using his magnetized sphere in a vacuum, Birkeland was able to understand earth’s auroras, and predicted that these would take place simultaneously at both poles. He did outstanding observational work in the Arctic and in the laboratory. He was vehemently opposed by Chapman and died beleiving his life’s work was being ignored. However, in the 80’s his observations were verified when military aircraft detected electrical current sheets in the auroras.
I say this because it would not be the first time Birkeland’s terrella observations were dismissed out of hand, as you are doing, because they did not fit popular assumptions about electricity in space.
The discharges from the toroid ring do migrate from different latitudes depending on current input in the terrella experiment. Sunspots behave the same way and the sun does have a torus. Sunspots of the same polarity attract as do electric currents in wires, when flowing in the same direction. You can also observe twisted Birkeland currents on the sun.
And your Schatten pdf does not even begin to pretend to approach the twisted vortex filaments in the sunspot penumbras; yet electric vortexes are to be expected where there is current. http://www.oca.eu/ukmhd2004/Abstract/sunspot.jpg