This should be interesting. At least they aren’t putting Dikpati on the panel. The scene from the movie “The Wizard of Oz” where after the residents of Emerald City see strange writings in the sky and shout “the Wizard will explain it!” come to mind.
MEDIA ADVISORY: M11-043
NASA RESCHEDULES TELECONFERENCE TO EXPLAIN MISSING SUNSPOTS
WASHINGTON — NASA has rescheduled a media teleconference for 2 p.m.
EST on Wednesday, March 2, to discuss the first computer model that
explains the recent period of decreased solar activity during the
sun’s 11-year cycle. The recent solar minimum, a period characterized
by a lower frequency of sunspots and solar storms, ended in 2008 and
was the deepest observed in almost 100 years.The teleconference panelists are:
— Richard Fisher, director, Heliophysics Division, Science Mission
Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington
— Dibyendu Nandi, assistant professor, Indian Institute of Science
Education and Research, Kolkata, India
— Andres Munoz-Jaramillo, visiting research fellow,
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Mass.
— Delores Knipp, visiting scientist, University of Colorado at
Boulder
Supporting information for the briefing will be posted at:
Audio of the teleconference will be streamed live on the Web at:
===============================================
h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard
Zeke the Sneak says: March 3, 2011 at 11:01 am
………………
I think the idea of the atmosphere “puffing up” on the account of solar activity alone is overdone.
Volume of the ionosphere depends on:
1. Intensity of solar activity – ions, protons and electrons
2. Intensity of the Earth’s magnetic field – retaining the above particles.
For the rest see:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/IonSph.htm
vukcevic says:
March 3, 2011 at 11:27 am
Volume of the ionosphere depends on:
1. Intensity of solar activity – ions, protons and electrons
2. Intensity of the Earth’s magnetic field – retaining the above particles.
Gravity retains the particles. Don’t pontificate on things you do not understand.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 2, 2011 at 11:32 am
..Now, during a solar cycle the magnetic flux from decaying sunspots are transported to the poles where the flux first reverses the old polar fields, and then thereafter builds up the new polar fields that determine the size of the next cycle. The polar fields at the north pole have already reversed sign and that gives the Sun a lot of time for building up the new flux, which may then become rather large, so my WAG for the next cycle [SC25] is a rather large cycle. At least as far as F10.7 is concerned. If L&P are correct, then visual sunspot number may be small, though. That combination of high [real] solar activity and hard to see sunspots..
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 3, 2011 at 9:37 am
Tenuc says:
March 3, 2011 at 7:37 am
Thanks Rob/Leif, I didn’t realise the polar field had stayed that low.
What happens if it continues at low level for the next couple of decades?
The polar fields were low over the past minimum signalling a low solar cycle 24 [as we are now having]. Then near solar max, the polar fields disappear [this is happening now] and thereafter they rebuild, ready for the next cycle. The reversal of the polar fields in the North has already started. This may mean [but is a wild guess only] that they will have time to build to be stronger than they were last minimum. If so, solar cycle 25 will be larger than SC24. We shall see..
~
With all this chatter about solar reversal ensuing..reminded me of the last (anomalous) solar polar reversal. That one year delay must be that build up time? Then the polar fields never really developed and Ol Sol been using the source surface fields.
Oh but northern hemisphere again on its way ..is there a reverse meridional flow in the northern hemisphere of the sun now.. signalling some source surface field harmonic location of its Interstellar magnetic reconnection regimee..?
Good article, on topic.
DIAGNOSTICS OF POLAR FIELD REVERSAL IN SOLAR CYCLE 23 USING A FLUX
TRANSPORT DYNAMO MODEL
Mausumi Dikpati, Giuliana de Toma, and Peter A. Gilman Charles N. Arge Oran R. White
..In this first study we focus on understanding anomalies occurring in the polar field evolutionary pattern in cycle
23, namely, why the polar reversal in cycle 23 was slow, why after reversal the buildup of the polar field was
slow, and why the south pole reversed approximately a year after the north pole did..
..We show that a 10%–20% weakening in photospheric magnetic flux in cycle 23 with respect to that in
cycle 22 is the primary reason for a 1 yr slowdown in polar reversal in cycle 23. Weakening in this flux is also
the reason for slow buildup of polar field after reversal, whereas the observed north-south asymmetry in
meridional circulation in the form of a larger decrease in flow speed in the northern hemisphere than that in the
southern hemisphere during 1996–2002 and the appearance of a reverse, high-latitude flow cell in the northern
hemisphere during 1998–2001 caused the north polar field to reverse before the south polar field..
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/601/2/1136/pdf/0004-637X_601_2_1136.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 3, 2011 at 12:52 pm
Gravity retains the particles. Don’t pontificate on things you do not understand.
So charged particles are held by the gravity in the Van Allen belts ; it must be very reassuring for those who believe that radiation could be a danger, in case the Earth’s magnetic field looses most of its strength in an eventual magnetic pole reversal ?!
vukcevic says:
March 3, 2011 at 2:56 pm
“”Volume of the ionosphere depends on:
2. Intensity of the Earth’s magnetic field – retaining the above particles.””
Gravity retains the particles. Don’t pontificate on things you do not understand.”
So charged particles are held by the gravity in the Van Allen belts
The Van Allen belts are not the ionosphere. So, as I said, don’t pontificate on things you do not understand.
vukcevic says:
March 3, 2011 at 3:03 am
If you live near a city with 100+ yrs. of rainfall data, you can use David Archibalds method of plotting total inches of rainfall vs solar cycle length. Like this:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/WvPrecipSC.GIF
It does sort, and it shows my locale with greater precip. when the solar cycles are longer.
Probably caused by AGW.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 3, 2011 at 11:23 am
Not quite correct. There is no ‘electrical energy’ involved. The charges are trapped in the Earth’s magnetic field and drift around the Earth [plus bounce back and forth between the two poles].
Which gives us an opportunity to discuss our mutually admired scientist Birkeland once again, and his Terrella experiments. Here is an image of these “trapped charges in earth’s magnetic field” and how they “bounce back and forth between the two poles.”
http://images-mediawiki-sites.thefullwiki.org/03/2/3/6/00553993030647370.jpg
Birkeland used a magnetized sphere in a near vacuum in his experiments, and by directing electrical discharges at the sphere he produced analogs of sunspots, auroras, and planetary belts.
Now anyone can decide if there is electrical energy involved.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 3, 2011 at 11:23 am
Lightning is not a breakdown of any circuit between the ground and the ionosphere.
There is observational evidence that there is a path from the ionosphere to the earth’s crust, and you are aware of that. Sprites and jets are diffuse electrical discharges occuring high above lightning storms:
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&gbv=2&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=sprites+lightning&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=sprites%2C+
“Where is that electric current going to or coming from?” would be the question.
Zeke the Sneak says:
March 3, 2011 at 6:09 pm
Now anyone can decide if there is electrical energy involved.
Shooting charged particles at a target is not “electrical energy”
Zeke the Sneak says:
March 3, 2011 at 6:27 pm
“Where is that electric current going to or coming from?” would be the question.
From below generated by the thunderstorm
Leif,
Regarding the ~11 year frequency of the solar magnetic pole reversals, what is your view of any theories that explain the cause of the processes leading to magnetic reversals? Are there theories saying the reversals have a cause only the convective zone? Are there any theories saying the cause originates below the convection zone of the sun in the adjacent radiative zone? Are there any theories that the cause originates even further toward the center of the sun in the core?
John
Perhaps the static charge from ice crystals in thunderclouds radiate these powerful discharges high above the clouds into space, and down to earth in rapid successions of lightning bolts.
or, alternatively, the “lightning completes a much larger circuit extending into interplanetary space”
(The Electric Universe pg 48).
John Whitman says:
March 3, 2011 at 7:04 pm
Regarding the ~11 year frequency of the solar magnetic pole reversals, what is your view of any theories that explain the cause of the processes leading to magnetic reversals?
The reversal is not a theoretical construct but is simply an observational fact and the process can be readily observed. You can see it in action here: http://obs.astro.ucla.edu/images/smag.jpg
The magnetic flux from sunspots is virtually indestructible and as the spots decay simply spreads out into the surrounding photosphere. The meridional circulation carries the flux to the poles where is simply cancels out the old flux there, and then builds up the new [opposite polarity] flux. As the sunspots change polarity in an 11-yr cycle so do the polar fields [after the – several year – delay it takes them to get to the poles from the sunspot latitudes].
Zeke the Sneak says:
March 3, 2011 at 7:14 pm
Perhaps the static charge from ice crystals in thunderclouds radiate these powerful discharges high above the clouds into space, and down to earth in rapid successions of lightning bolts.
As I said it all comes from the thunderstorms
or, alternatively, the “lightning completes a much larger circuit extending into interplanetary space” (The Electric Universe pg 48).
A circuit requires an electromotive force to drive the current and there is no such emf for what you describe.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 3, 2011 at 7:43 pm
The reversal is not a theoretical construct but is simply an observational fact and the process can be readily observed. You can see it in action here: http://obs.astro.ucla.edu/images/smag.jpg
The magnetic flux from sunspots is virtually indestructible and as the spots decay simply spreads out into the surrounding photosphere. The meridional circulation carries the flux to the poles where is simply cancels out the old flux there, and then builds up the new [opposite polarity] flux. As the sunspots change polarity in an 11-yr cycle so do the polar fields [after the – several year – delay it takes them to get to the poles from the sunspot latitudes].
– – – – –
Leif,
Thanks of your timely reply.
I was hoping to get some thoughts from you or references regarding any hypotheses and/or theories that may address something occurring within the sun’s core or radiative zone that could drive the creation of the 11 yr cyclic behavior and the reversal of sunspots magnetic (N-S) orientation within the cycle? Is there any literature on what could be happening beneath the convective zone that could drive the 11 yr solar cycles?
John
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 3, 2011 at 7:43 pm
It would be very interesting to know what the reasons/theories are behind how the polar fields can vary in strength from cycle to cycle.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 3, 2011 at 4:37 pm
……….
So for properties of both ionosphere and Van Allen belts are due to gravity and not of the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field ?
Well that’s a new one. No surprise that solar scientists can’t agree on anything.
I did not say they are the same, otherwise why have two names, but then it’s your way of reasoning, which I find rather amusing.
rbateman says: March 3, 2011 at 5:17 pm
…………..
Mr. Bateman
Thanks for the tip, it is worth a try, I am a bit surprised what came out when I looked a bit further in, the 1870 – 1910 period’s winter temperature resembles strongly to the rainfall of 40 and 80 years later, (solid blue line) see graph 4 in:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ORR.htm
rbateman says:
March 3, 2011 at 10:09 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 3, 2011 at 7:43 pm
It would be very interesting to know what the reasons/theories are behind how the polar fields can vary in strength from cycle to cycle.
~
hahahahhahah Most excellent question thar Mr. Bateman..and a happy Friday to you and yar sweet..
Maybe Ol Sol has a Northern Hemispheric preference in this Interstellar Locale.
Sol’s changing orbit within a changing interstellar magnetic force and changing interstellar density pressure has caused this northern hemispheric preference. You can see the angle by noting spot locations. Which case the whole unexplained shift in neutral atom data at 1AU means that the gravitational focusing “piston” was changing angle. Which changes the dates the Earth passes through flows from the nose (heliosphere’s apex direction) and flows on the downwind exhaust side of the heliosphere.
Those inner planets Merc. Ven. Earth as seen on the 10AU java scrip movie here, http://gse.gi.alaska.edu/recent/javascript_movie.html we are going to find to be more involved in the solar reconnection to interstellar space.
The interstellar neuts that penetrate to 1AU via gravitational focusing piston are continuously being swept up in the Parker spiral. Much different effect out there at the Jupe and Sat distances. Still carrying a pretty good punch though. Oh know my cranky cut stuck in auto again..
John Whitman says:
March 3, 2011 at 9:37 pm
I was hoping to get some thoughts from you or references regarding any hypotheses and/or theories that may address something occurring within the sun’s core or radiative zone that could drive the creation of the 11 yr cyclic behavior and the reversal of sunspots magnetic (N-S) orientation within the cycle?
As far as we know there is nothing in the core or the radiative interior that drives the cycles.
It would be very interesting to know what the reasons/theories are behind how the polar fields can vary in strength from cycle to cycle.
The polar fields are the result of a ‘random walk’ of magnetic elements from the sunspot zones to the poles. As such there are enough random fluctuations to make the strength vary. About five to seven ‘surges’ of flux makes it to the poles [only about 1/1000 of the total flux]. You can see them here: http://obs.astro.ucla.edu/images/smag.jpg as the red [or blue] ‘tongues’ Since the number of surges is so small it could be five or seven or four or some other small number, just as when you flip a coin it doesn’t come up exactly 50% heads.
vukcevic says:
March 4, 2011 at 12:17 am
So for properties of both ionosphere and Van Allen belts are due to gravity and not of the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field ?
You are confusing the ionosphere whose volume is controlled by the balance between temperature and gravity with the Van Allen belts which are not part of the ionosphere.
which I find rather amusing.
You should rather be embarrassed.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 4, 2011 at 5:20 am
………..
There you go again.
I am not confusing anything, you are just trying to ‘plant’ a ‘view’ with aim to discredit, don’t forget I grew up and was educated in a communist country.
I wrote about ionosphere before http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC20.htm
and happen to know the difference.
This http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/154188main_plasma_bands_lgweb.jpg
is not product of the gravitational equator but the geomagnetic equator, and it is not in the Van Allen belt but it is occurring high in the electrically-charged upper atmosphere, known as the ionosphere. Perhaps you could try something else.
vukcevic says:
March 4, 2011 at 6:08 am
is not product of the gravitational equator but the geomagnetic equator, and it is not in the Van Allen belt but it is occurring high in the electrically-charged upper atmosphere, known as the ionosphere. Perhaps you could try something else.
That does not change the fact that what holds the ionosphere [and the atmosphere, generally] close to earth is simple gravity. Again, do not pontificate on things you do not understand.
What I said:
Volume of the ionosphere depends on:
1. Intensity of solar activity – ions, protons and electrons
2. Intensity of the Earth’s magnetic field – retaining the above particles.
Solar wind provides (and or ionises) particles, the Earth’s magnetic retains the particles in the upper atmosphere for longer than it would be case if the magnetic field was not present.
And that is correct. Charged particles in the equatorial electrojet are retained due to the Earth’s magnetic field, not gravitation!
You are making a big meal out of it in order to embarrass, but failed.
Now then, what about this: [only about 1/1000 of the total flux]
I say, a very successful build up of so well ordered polar fields (despite all problems of physical measurements) from one cycle to another
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
with such a small chance of 1/1000 of success. Looks as that idea (1/1000 ) may have to go to the shredder machine soon.
Dosvidaniya comrade
vukcevic says:
March 4, 2011 at 8:10 am
Volume of the ionosphere depends on:
1. Intensity of solar activity – ions, protons and electrons
2. Intensity of the Earth’s magnetic field – retaining the above particles.
Solar wind provides (and or ionises) particles, the Earth’s magnetic retains the particles in the upper atmosphere for longer than it would be case if the magnetic field was not present.
And this is what is incorrect. The ionosphere is not created by the solar wind but by solar UV and almost disappears at night. The Earth’s magnetic field has nothing to do with this and is not ‘retaining’ the ionosphere, gravity does that.
You are making a big meal out of it in order to embarrass, but failed.
You are doing a good job on your own in the embarrassment department.
Don’t pontificate on things you do not understand.
Now then, what about this: [only about 1/1000 of the total flux]
I say, a very successful build up of so well ordered polar fields (despite all problems of physical measurements) from one cycle to another […] with such a small chance of 1/1000 of success.
Again, do not pontificate on things you do not understand. Direct measurements of the fluxes show the polar flux to be about 1/200 of the sunspot flux, but there are a lot of unresolved small elements in the active regions, so the 1/1000 is probably closer to the truth. Whatever the number is, it is very small in terms of ‘success’, to use your phrase. Another way of putting it: of the thousands of spots in a solar cycle, the flux from only a handful makes it to the poles.
vukcevic says:
March 4, 2011 at 8:10 am
Now then, what about this: [only about 1/1000 of the total flux]
In Clare Parnell’s recent paper http://www-solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~clare/Publications/TP_SolPhys2011.pdf you’ll find [line 54]
“Active regions involve large-scale magnetic features such as sunspots and plage regions and have fluxes of a few times 10^22 Mx (Maxwell)” and [line 915]: “Overall though, more than 10^29 Mx are emerged in regions with fluxes greater-equal to 10^16 Mx over a solar cycle”
We measured the polar field to be 3*10^22 Mx [3*10^14 Wb], comparable to an active region. So a very small part of the whole. Part of the problem of making a flux budget is to know the lifetime of the flux, to avoid counting the same flux more than once, but it is clear that the polar fields are small fry.
“And this is what is incorrect. The ionosphere is not created by the solar wind but by solar UV and almost disappears at night.”
I’ve been an amateur extra for many years and hadn’t really thought about this, though I used it almost every day to keep in touch. Sunrise and sunset being ideal times for long range 20 meter HF communications.
I had always assumed that the ionosphere was locally created each day as the atmosphere rotated with the earth and was carried into the sunlight, as we are taught in the books.
However, there may be the possibility that the effect is due to the earth turning into the solar wind each day, and it is the magnetic properties of the solar wind that deflect earth based RF communications.
It certainly is an amazing effect. A radio transmitter with 100 watts power (and often much less). About the same power as a household light bulb, can be detected easily over distances of thousands of miles, because the atmosphere acts sort of like a huge curved mirror, focusing the transmissions back to earth. Sort of like going to a science museum and having your voice carried over long distances using parabolic reflectors.
By choosing the right frequency and time of day, depending on the solar cycle activity, you can fine tune the communications to your station of interest. Low solar activity generally means you must use lower frequencies. High solar activity and higher frequencies like CB (27mh) can go to the other side of the world on just a few watts.
Whether the effect is created daily through ionization due to UV, or the earth simply turns into the dome shaped solar wind, I think this is an interesting alternative explanation.
Maybe the science isn’t as settled as we think it is?