We’ve been watching the progress on the WUWT solar reference page in this plot from Dr. Leif Svalgaard:
Solar Polar Fields – Mt. Wilson and Wilcox Combined -1966 to Present
Leif Svalgaard – Click the pic to view at sourceNow, NASA has decided to call the flip. Video follows.
Something big is about to happen on the sun. According to measurements from NASA-supported observatories, the sun’s vast magnetic field is about to flip.
“It looks like we’re no more than 3 to 4 months away from a complete field reversal,” says solar physicist Todd Hoeksema of Stanford University. “This change will have ripple effects throughout the solar system.”
The sun’s magnetic field changes polarity approximately every 11 years. It happens at the peak of each solar cycle as the sun’s inner magnetic dynamo re-organizes itself. The coming reversal will mark the midpoint of Solar Cycle 24. Half of ‘Solar Max’ will be behind us, with half yet to come.
Hoeksema is the director of Stanford’s Wilcox Solar Observatory, one of the few observatories in the world that monitor the sun’s polar magnetic fields. The poles are a herald of change. Just as Earth scientists watch our planet’s polar regions for signs of climate change, solar physicists do the same thing for the sun. Magnetograms at Wilcox have been tracking the sun’s polar magnetism since 1976, and they have recorded three grand reversals—with a fourth in the offing.
Astronomers at the Wilcox Solar Observatory (WSO) monitor the sun’s global magnetic field on a daily basis. WSO home page
Solar physicist Phil Scherrer, also at Stanford, describes what happens: “The sun’s polar magnetic fields weaken, go to zero, and then emerge again with the opposite polarity. This is a regular part of the solar cycle.”
A reversal of the sun’s magnetic field is, literally, a big event. The domain of the sun’s magnetic influence (also known as the “heliosphere”) extends billions of kilometers beyond Pluto. Changes to the field’s polarity ripple all the way out to the Voyager probes, on the doorstep of interstellar space.
When solar physicists talk about solar field reversals, their conversation often centers on the “current sheet.” The current sheet is a sprawling surface jutting outward from the sun’s equator where the sun’s slowly-rotating magnetic field induces an electrical current. The current itself is small, only one ten-billionth of an amp per square meter (0.0000000001 amps/m2), but there’s a lot of it: the amperage flows through a region 10,000 km thick and billions of kilometers wide. Electrically speaking, the entire heliosphere is organized around this enormous sheet.
During field reversals, the current sheet becomes very wavy. Scherrer likens the undulations to the seams on a baseball. As Earth orbits the sun, we dip in and out of the current sheet. Transitions from one side to another can stir up stormy space weather around our planet.
An artist’s concept of the heliospheric current sheet, which becomes more wavy when the sun’s magnetic field flips. More
Cosmic rays are also affected. These are high-energy particles accelerated to nearly light speed by supernova explosions and other violent events in the galaxy. Cosmic rays are a danger to astronauts and space probes, and some researchers say they might affect the cloudiness and climate of Earth. The current sheet acts as a barrier to cosmic rays, deflecting them as they attempt to penetrate the inner solar system. A wavy, crinkly sheet acts as a better shield against these energetic particles from deep space.
As the field reversal approaches, data from Wilcox show that the sun’s two hemispheres are out of synch.
“The sun’s north pole has already changed sign, while the south pole is racing to catch up,” says Scherrer. “Soon, however, both poles will be reversed, and the second half of Solar Max will be underway.”
When that happens, Hoeksema and Scherrer will share the news with their colleagues and the public.
Source: NASA press release, h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard
VIDEO:
Related articles
- The solar cycle is still slumping (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Sun’s 2013 Solar Activity Peak Is Weakest in 100 Years (space.com)
CRS, DrPH says:
August 5, 2013 at 10:42 pm
Dr. Jim Kaler. Amazingly, he’s in excellent health and we still communicate!
Love of Science keeps you young
It happens at the peak of each solar cycle as the sun’s inner magnetic dynamo re-organizes itself.
meaning of the above: ‘We Have No Clue’ – WHNC
vukcevic says:
August 5, 2013 at 10:48 pm
meaning of the above: ‘We Have No Clue’ – WHNC
Perhaps you could easy on the nonsense and embarrass yourself a bit less.
How does all the fluctuation in solar magnetic field relate to Ap? If the source is weakening (is it?), then Ap will drop further? And then what does that do to GCR flux -> clouds -> weather patterns? Seems to me the solar wind/magnetic field perturbations of weather via GCRs is a reasonable if the signal is amplified. Obviously, TSI variation is weak, so that can’t be a major causal factor, except perhaps for UV influences on the upper atmosphere.
My problem is a lot of us here have been reading about various concepts here at WUWT regarding solar weather and climate for years. There is a significant risk many of us we might think we actually know something. Or, we might listen to someone who thinks they know something and we believe them.
I’m not necessarily believing any one particular idea at this point. I am trying to fit pieces together to see if they naturally handle observables well. And of course it is nice if there is further experimental evidence to back up the hypotheses. I’m am satisfied Siegenthaler and others have shown conclusively CO2 follows temperature change, so that was enough to toss the causal role in AGW. Where I have a very large gap is in the cause of ocean thermal cycles. Does it at all have to do with the thermohaline current? Are they tied together? Is PDO for example really just a ~1000m max phenomenon, or does something act deeper as a regulator?
Years ago I wrote here I didn’t believe the Sun was sufficient to produce big influences on GCRs, but galactic processes might produce much higher fluxes, and these might have profound influences along the lines of Svensmark to dramatically alter climate. It was great to see the paper on the Earth’s trajectory through the galaxy and how climate changes may have been influenced by changes in our surroundings.
I don’t get to do experiments, but I do get to use my BS detector, and it is fun to put together the available ideas. It’s like being a kid, looking at map of the Earth and seeing how Africa and South America fit together. Then you find out about plate tectonics. That’s what I find very fun about being here. We get exposed to new concepts, and it’s like being an undergrad again. Without the exams. Or the beer. But Willis gets the Kava, and we get great stories and interesting analysis.
We don’t often hear it enough from family how much we appreciate each other. Well, despite our arguments and ego tantrums, this is an awesome family. Thanks people.
Hoser says:
August 5, 2013 at 11:21 pm
How does all the fluctuation in solar magnetic field relate to Ap? If the source is weakening (is it?), then Ap will drop further?
Yes, Ap will follow the cycle down. But even when the sunspot number has dropped to zero, there is still a non-zero level of geomagnetic activity.
the Hermit says:
August 5, 2013 at 8:36 pm
“According to this, both the North and South poles have crossed:
http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html”
No, that’s an incorrect statement. That plot, as well as those made by Leif and WSO, all use the same data source. While the filtered polar field data provides us with a good historical representation of the development of the polar fields, it is important to remember that due to how the filtered values are calculated, there is significant uncertainty for the last year or so of data. The uncertainty is highest for the most recent values. We will still have to wait a few months to know when the southern polar field flipped. Judging from current SDO magnetograms there is not much difference between the number and size of positive and negative polarity patches near the south pole.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 5, 2013 at 9:22 pm
davidmhoffer says:
August 5, 2013 at 9:09 pm
OK seriously, what is the reason for the earth’s orbit becoming more circular?
Perturbations by the planets, mostly Jupiter [yes, the planets are driving our climate].
According to astrophysicist Ian Wilson, planetary perturbations may be affecting shorter term Earth Orientation Parameters too. Such as the Chandler Wobble and the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation, which appears to be linked to the Arctic Oscillation and interannual weather patterns.
http://wp.me/pi4G5-3Ap
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 5, 2013 at 10:52 pm
vukcevic says:
August 5, 2013 at 10:48 pm
(It happens at the peak of each solar cycle as the sun’s inner magnetic dynamo re-organizes itself.)
meaning of the above: ‘We Have No Clue’ – WHNC
Perhaps you could easy on the nonsense and embarrass yourself a bit less.
………………
Not knowing or being wrong I’m carefree to admit, and never get embarrassed by it. Suppressing progress would be a different matter.
[i]Leif – We have about 10,000 years of cosmic ray proxies for solar activity and the ’100-yr’ wave does not seem to exist in the earlier data. [/i]
Would that not suggest the resolution of the proxies is such that 100 year cycles are invisible rather than not there?
Lief thank you for your reply, The earths magnet is not in good shape at the moment and am wondering if this is directly connected with the solar field?
Robert Wykoff says:
August 5, 2013 at 5:25 pm
You & me both!!! 😉
I am reminded (& I repeat) of the BBC Horizon science programme of a few years ago, when they did a show on the Sun, the script writers had the poor hapless jobbing actor doing the narration say, towards the end of course, “No one can explain EXACTLY how the Sun affects the Earth’s climate, but whatever it is, it’s already been overtaken by manmade global warming!” Cut from Infrared close-up view of Sun to a carving iceberg for dramatic effect!!!! Such a shame great programmes/shows fall by the wayside to appease their paymasters. Yet the ultimate insult is that it is the taxpayers who finally foot the bill!!!! I don’t mind being screwed over for a percentage because I was a fool, it’s when I know I am unavoidably being screwed over that I object to it most!!!!
NASA disinformation campaign audit :
1:10 “Just as Earth scientists watch our planets polar regions for signs of climate change… ”
Utterly absurd. This alludes that the vanishing polar bear habitat myth has an equivalent in the sun magnetic reversal.
Of course, again we see Leif sheepishly pretend this sentence and the objections to it raised in the comments don’t exist.
1:59 the screen slow zooms out of an picture diagram of the solar system. There is a label ‘bow shock’.
This was an object postulated to exist in ‘solar wind meets the interstellar wind’ theory. This theory was tested and falsified by May 2012.
There is literature and consensus on this.
e.g.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22582011
http://swri.org/9what/releases/2012/bowshock.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120510141957.htm
http://www.universetoday.com/95094/surprise-ibex-finds-no-bow-shock-outside-our-solar-system/
and from NASA…
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ibex/news/nobowshock.html
“new data from NASA’s Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX), however, now indicate that the sun does not have a bow shock May 2012
How come in the 58 comments prior to this one no one seems to have noticed NASA slip this now discredited theory in? NASA carry a big bagful of old discredited space myths around. They still expound them in their public releases. If you are ready to spot the Al Gore polar bear one in this vid, then you should be able to spot the others.
Dr Svalgaard, whilst many of the people frequenting this site are well-credentialed scientists, others like me are lay people who come here to learn things. It is to your great credit that you, as a leading active researcher in this field, are prepared to come here and answer so many questions. Thank you.
Dr. Svalgaard, I read the link you provided at 6:55 and I noticed on the last page you used the expression “working hypothesis.” Maybe if our “friends” Mann, Gore, et al used that expression instead of settled science when talking about AGW, they might have more people willing to listen.
Tim says:
August 6, 2013 at 2:16 am
Would that not suggest the resolution of the proxies is such that 100 year cycles are invisible rather than not there?
The resolution is good enough [from 1 to about 20 years] to show a 100 year cycle if there were one.
wayne Job says:
August 6, 2013 at 2:27 am
wondering if this is directly connected with the solar field?
No, the Earth’s field is generated in the core 3000 km down and is 100,000 times stronger than the solar field impacting the Earth.
meemoe_uk says:
August 6, 2013 at 3:25 am
How come in the 58 comments prior to this one no one seems to have noticed NASA slip this now discredited theory in?
Perhaps because there is a bow shock:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130718111325.htm
tallbloke says:
August 6, 2013 at 12:10 am
According to astrophysicist Ian Wilson, planetary perturbations may be affecting shorter term Earth Orientation Parameters too.
Brilliant piece of numerology.
So this is it, solar maximum right now.
Perhaps because there is a bow shock:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130718111325.htm
Doubt it.
The slow bow shock model is a definitive case of a desperate scramble to save a dead theory.
The conflict between pride & dogma vs evidence spills out into the article you linked.
“The researchers base their expectation of finding a bow shock on a new magneto-hydrodynamic simulation that confirmed a theoretically expected slow bow shock (SBS) ahead of the heliosphere.”
“Confirmed” ?
Someone hypothesises something so they get a computer to simulate it. That’s confirmation is it?
The article conveniently fails to mention that SBS theory is an postdictive adjustment to the 2012 IBEX results.
And I didn’t miss that your comment was ambiguous. I could mean 1 of 2 things
a) : There might be a slow bow shock
b) : There is a bow shock, and that perhaps why others didn’t point it out in the comments.
Your bias for the bow shock theory is telling.
The bow shock theory has gone the way of dark matter and dirty snowball comets.. i.e. Completely falsified. But just as with any other falsified theories, there will be acolytes that continue to believe it and to expound it as long as they live.
One decent aspect of the article…
” This challenges some recent models that argued no bow shock at all would be found. “
These ‘recent models’ are actually over 10 years old and are from electric universe adherents such as Thornhill and Scott.
So far, no bow shock found.
Eventually after dozens of fails the bow shock theory will go the way of the higgs boson prediction :- i.e. it’ll be reduced to – some change in conditions is predicted, in some circumstances . So when inevitably that tautology is evidenced by some probe, the headline will be ” bowshock theory proved right ! ”
Same pattern of dealing with falsified theories happens everywhere in ‘establishment science’.
xD
Leif, thanks for your comments. I learn more from reading a few brief words from you than anybody else I can think of.
meemoe_uk says:
August 6, 2013 at 6:07 am
Someone hypothesises something so they get a computer to simulate it. That’s confirmation is it?
The IBEX result was based on models:
“analytical calculations and modeling and simulations to determine the conditions necessary for creating a bow shock. Two independent global models — one from a group in Huntsville, Ala., and another from Moscow — correlated with the analytical findings.”
These ‘recent models’ are actually over 10 years old and are from electric universe adherents such as Thornhill and Scott.
That alone makes the whole thing dubious, to say the least.
“Leif Svalgaard says:
August 6, 2013 at 6:15 am
That alone makes the whole thing dubious, to say the least.”
I am glad you agree.
Patrick says:
August 6, 2013 at 6:20 am
“That [EU] alone makes the whole thing dubious, to say the least.”
Apart from the fact that the IBEX models are not based on EU theory [which has never predicted anything]
The paper on the bow shock [Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 40, Issue 12, pages 2923–2928, 28 June 2013] states:
“Current estimates of plasma parameters in the local interstellar medium indicate that the speed of the interstellar wind, i.e., the relative speed of the local interstellar cloud with respect to the Sun, is most likely less than both the fast magnetosonic speed (subfast) and the Alfvén speed (sub-Alfvénic) but greater than the slow magnetosonic speed (superslow). In this peculiar parameter regime, MHD theory postulates a slow magnetosonic shock ahead of the heliosphere, provided that the angle between the interstellar magnetic field and the interstellar plasma flow velocity is quite small (e.g., 15° to 30°). In this likely scenario, our multifluid MHD model of the heliospheric interface self-consistently produces a spatially confined quasi-parallel slow bow shock. Voyager 1 is heading toward the slow bow shock, while Voyager 2 is not, which means that the two spacecraft are expected to encounter different interstellar plasma populations beyond the heliopause. The slow bow shock also affects the density and spatial extent of the neutral hydrogen wall.”
Since we have not penetrated to the bow shock, all ‘conclusion’ pro et con are based on simulations, which is fine as the models encapsulate our knowledge. If that is shaky, so are our ‘findings’.
Patrick says:
August 6, 2013 at 6:20 am
“That [EU] alone makes the whole thing dubious, to say the least.”
I am glad you agree.
Apart from the fact that the IBEX models are not based on EU theory [which has never predicted anything]
The paper on the bow shock [Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 40, Issue 12, pages 2923–2928, 28 June 2013] states:
“Current estimates of plasma parameters in the local interstellar medium indicate that the speed of the interstellar wind, i.e., the relative speed of the local interstellar cloud with respect to the Sun, is most likely less than both the fast magnetosonic speed (subfast) and the Alfvén speed (sub-Alfvénic) but greater than the slow magnetosonic speed (superslow). In this peculiar parameter regime, MHD theory postulates a slow magnetosonic shock ahead of the heliosphere, provided that the angle between the interstellar magnetic field and the interstellar plasma flow velocity is quite small (e.g., 15° to 30°). In this likely scenario, our multifluid MHD model of the heliospheric interface self-consistently produces a spatially confined quasi-parallel slow bow shock. Voyager 1 is heading toward the slow bow shock, while Voyager 2 is not, which means that the two spacecraft are expected to encounter different interstellar plasma populations beyond the heliopause. The slow bow shock also affects the density and spatial extent of the neutral hydrogen wall.”
Since we have not yet penetrated to the bow shock, all ‘conclusions’ pro et con are based on simulations, which is fine as the models encapsulate our knowledge. If that is shaky, so are our ‘findings’.
“Leif Svalgaard says:
August 6, 2013 at 6:30 am
Since we have not penetrated to the bow shock, all ‘conclusion’ pro et con are based on simulations, which is fine as the models encapsulate our knowledge. If that is shaky, so are our ‘findings’.”
Simulations and models. Shaky?
So when the Earth’s magnetic field flips, will it do so in the same fashion? i.e. – in the same short time period, with complete reversal happening in just a year or so?
And why should the Earth’s magnetic cycle be so much longer than the Sun’s?