Above: note the four separate events in the last two days – from the WUWT Solar Page
(From NASA’s Spaceweather.com) When the week began, the sun hadn’t unleashed an X-flare all year long. In only two days, sunspot AR1748 has produced four. The latest X-flare from this active sunspot occured on May 15th at 0152 UT. NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory captured the extreme ultraviolet flash:
Although the sunspot is not directly facing Earth, this flare might have produced a CME with an Earth-directed component. We are waiting for coronagraph data from SOHO and the twin STEREO probes to check this possibility. Stay tuned for updates.
In summary, AR1748 has produced an X1.7-class flare (0217 UT on May 13), an X2.8-class flare (1609 UT on May 13), an X3.2-class flare (0117 UT on May 14), and an X1-class flare (0152 on May 15). These are the strongest flares of the year, and they signal a significant increase in solar activity.
A second breath for cycle 24? F. Clette
http://www.stce.be/news/197/welcome.html
Sparks says:
May 17, 2013 at 9:38 am
Can there be an effect on the suns magnetic fields interacting with secular resonance?
Again, no, in particular on the Sun: the solar wind is supersonic and magnetic effects cannot travel upstream.
vukcevic says:
May 17, 2013 at 9:43 am
Is that correct ?
As the graph clearly show, yes.
jcarels says:
May 17, 2013 at 9:44 am
A second breath for cycle 24? F. Clette
What is wrong with this is the reliance on wiggle matching. There are good physical reasons why the solar polar fields area good predictor of solar activity and based on those, solar activity will not have a late cycle major surge. There will, of course, be wild swings [like in cycle 14]. We are seeing one right now, and there will be more.
lsvalgaard says: May 17, 2013 at 9:43 am
As the graph clearly show, yes.
Excellent !!
Tnx doc.
Leif,
I’ve found what appears to be a match between a secular resonance of the planetary orbits and the sunspot record from 1800’s – 2012, but it may be something else, I’m trying to rule out possibilities.
Before I strike secular resonance of my list, can it effect the solar wind?
Sparks says:
May 17, 2013 at 11:09 am
Before I strike secular resonance of my list, can it effect the solar wind?
Also, no
@ur momisugly Leif: SC24 doesn’t seem to have such wild swings as SC14. Activity varies a lot but not like SC14. SC14 even had spotless days during its solar max.
jcarels says:
May 19, 2013 at 8:35 am
SC24 doesn’t seem to have such wild swings as SC14. Activity varies a lot but not like SC14. SC14 even had spotless days during its solar max.
No two cycles are exactly alike.The really wild swings in SC14 started some four years into the cycle, just about where we are in SC24 right now http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24.png so the swings may be about to take off. We shall see. As to zero spots, it is possible that with SIDC including observations from ~60 observers during the day that it is just harder to get a spotless sun than back then during SC14 when they looked only once per day, see slide 17 of http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Clette1.pdf
Especially the rule that is R is between 0 and 7 [e.g. 1] then it is set to 7.
Comparing cycles isn’t really science but sometimes nice to do. What do you think about SC12 vs SC24. Those look more the same to me than SC14 and SC24.
I can see that there are 2 observers using the original wolf telescope, do you know who they are?
Just one last question: any new info on the Locarno wolf count?
jcarels says:
May 19, 2013 at 11:34 am
Comparing cycles isn’t really science but sometimes nice to do. What do you think about SC12 vs SC24. Those look more the same to me than SC14 and SC24.
As you note, this is hardly science, especially when we only have a piece of a cycle.
I can see that there are 2 observers using the original wolf telescope, do you know who they are?
Yes, one is Thomas Friedli [the other may be H-U Keller]. Thomas is seen in figure 4 of http://www.leif.org/research/swsc130003.pdf
Just one last question: any new info on the Locarno wolf count?
Yes, Locarno now keeps a count both of weighted spots [as they have done since 1957] and of the raw, unweighted [real] count. The result is still the same: weighting increases the sunspot count by 58%, translating into an inflation of the SSN by almost 20%.
Leif,
Have you done any research into secular resonance?
Sparks says:
May 19, 2013 at 12:45 pm
Have you done any research into secular resonance?
Define ‘secular resonance’…
lsvalgaard says:
May 19, 2013 at 12:46 pm
Define ‘secular resonance’…
As in “Orbital resonance”, like I mentioned above, I’ve been working on the idea of this and I have built a physical plot to visualize it, I haven’t finished it yet, I would like you to have a look at it when completed. It may not be what I think it is, I’m thinking in the way of Orbital resonance ‘possibly’ interacting with magnetic fields. The formula I have come up with for this is N = n1-n2.
I’ll have more in a day or two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance
Sparks says:
May 19, 2013 at 1:15 pm
As in “Orbital resonance”, like I mentioned above
Orbital resonance is a well-researched and well-understood phenomenon and every astronomer has basic knowledge of the process. Planets, moons, and planetary rings all show examplea of such resonances.
I’m thinking in the way of Orbital resonance ‘possibly’ interacting with magnetic fields.
That is hard as the magnetic field varies on time-scales MUCH shorter than orbital resonances. Furthermore, magnetic effects cannot travel upstream in the solar wind so cannot influence the sun.
lsvalgaard says:
May 19, 2013 at 1:20 pm
That is hard as the magnetic field varies on time-scales MUCH shorter than orbital resonances. Furthermore, magnetic effects cannot travel upstream in the solar wind so cannot influence the sun.
Yes, but can the Sun be influencing The orbital resonance of the planets, I’ll be able to explain it better when I have finished, I’ll provide the data. there seems to me to be an interaction, maybe you could shed some light on it. Like I said, it may be nothing, but It would be great to have an explanation.
Sparks says:
May 19, 2013 at 1:32 pm
Yes, but can the Sun be influencing The orbital resonance of the planets
No, I don’t think so, at least not on reasonable time scales. As the sun slowly loses mas [4 million tons per second], over billions of years there will be an effect on the orbits, but we don’t need to worry about those.