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)
Jan Alvestad says, August 5, 2013 at 11:53 pm
Very true. But the 20nHz filter mainly compensates for projection effect rather than noise. It’s therefore possible to re-interpolate recent filtered values (by looking at unfiltered values taken nearest the 8th of June and 10th of December when there’s no projection effect imbalance) to get a better provisional impression of what is currently happening.
http://postimg.org/image/mmkklknqr/full
What’s interesting at the moment is not what South is doing but rather what North is not. And it doesn’t look like there’s much coming down the track to change that (yet anyway):
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/magbfly.jpg
Many thanks for your wonderful site, keeping it updated must be a lot of work.
As an amateur science observer(I love wuwt) I did not know the suns magnetic fields flipped, and regularly. At first I though it was a important big deal but every solar cycle means it is not a surprise. Still, fascinating!
ralfellis says:
August 6, 2013 at 6:41 am
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?
No, the Earth takes thousands of years to ‘flip’
And why should the Earth’s magnetic cycle be so much longer than the Sun’s?
Completely different conditions.
Patrick and Leif Svalgaard:
My ignorance of solar matters is more than sufficient for me to not comment on solar issues. I am writing in hope of avoiding a side-track which the two of you seem to be entering.
Leif says:
And Patrick replies
Lief’s comment is honest and true.
Indeed, it is a simple statement of a scientific principle.
Empirical data will reveal the accuracy and predictive ability of the models. Until then, the models ARE a statement of the understandings from which the modelers constructed the model(s). This is true of every scientific model about anything.
If the model makes a prediction (in this case about effects of postulated ‘bow shock’) then that prediction supports the understanding if the prediction comes true.
Alternatively,
If the model makes a prediction (in this case about effects of postulated ‘bow shock’) then that prediction refutes the understanding if the prediction fails to come true.
The failure of the prediction to ‘come true’ shows the model is “shaky” because the understanding is incorrect (in some way or to some degree).
Until the prediction is observed to be correct or (in some way) incorrect then the model is a statement of the existing understanding. And that understanding is provided with merit by the fact that it can be tested because the prediction(s) of the model can be compared to subsequently obtained empirical data.
However, Patrick is right to have some scepticism. The use of models in place of empirical data is a negation of real science. This negation of science has been seen, for example, in the refusal of climatologists to accept that the predictive failures of climate models indicate error the climatolosts’ understanding of climate.
I see nothing in what Lief has said which suggests he would be party to such a negation of science.
Richard
One can only hope that Earth’s response to tugs and pulls from other planetary bodies WILL prolong our current shangri la. I love Earth’s intrinsic variable nature. It is such an alive planet I find infinitely fascinating and wonderfully powerful.
As for the Sun, I have said it before and will say it again. Exchange any diamond’s size and brilliance on my finger for a tiny piece of the Sun. It is far more dazzling to my eyes than a dead rock.
Speaking of the Sun … OT ..yes .. but … the Neutron Monitor at NWU has been updated.
http://143.160.38.244/webfm_send/42735
Just thought I’d pass it along being as it has not been updated on the solar reference site.
Not sure why this heated debat about the Bow Shock started, but it is interesting. Is it possible that the boundry conditions can change. Possible the galactic cloud’s density changes as we move through it, or the angle or speed of the galactic cloud (with respect to our solar system). If this is possible, a single probe may or may not encounter the ‘usual’ condition.
Dr. Deanster says:
August 6, 2013 at 7:37 am
the Neutron Monitor at NWU has been updated
Thank you.
” 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’. ”
Typical. Leif is not being honest about evidence in relation to solar wind bow shock theory. He is pretending no results of note came from voyager 1 in 2010.
In 2010 Voyager 1 was measuring the solar wind on the edge of the solar system. Bow shock theory predicted that at some distance out from the sun the solar wind would yield to an interstellar wind and that some evidence for physics analogous to well understood fluid bow shocks would be measured.
Such yielding was predicted to be a change of direction in the wind.
Instead the solar wind came to a dead halt. No bow shock theory at the time predicted or explained it. Therefore all theory for such models were falsified.
This was all widely publicized at the time
“All [ bowshock ] theoretical models have been found wanting.” – Stamatios Krimigis, a space scientist at Johns Hopkins University and NASA principal investigator in charge of the Voyager spacecraft’s Low-Energy Charged Particle instrument,
http://www.livescience.com/23822-voyager-spacecraft-solar-system.html
Of course NASA is more than 1 person, so while I can point to many articles and quote NASA scientists who now believe the heliopause is the region discovered in by 2010 voyager 1 and that bowshock theory is discredited, so Lief can point to some stubborn minded conservative NASA work that has bashed the old models to fit in with new results.
No bow shock at the edge of the solar system has ever been evidenced,
Bow shock models failed to predict the stagnation of the solar wind.
And I expect the new slow bow shock model will be falsified if and when voyager measures a new region of conditions further out the solar system.
Here’s a question : Since the solar wind was measured to effectively cease in the region of voyager 1 in 2010, how is there going to be any bow shock at all? The best I can guess is that the orders of magnitude slower wind measured by V1 is going to be deflected laterally by an orders of magnitude ( than previously modelled ) slower stellar wind. Not much of a bow ‘shock’ then is it?
Sounds daft to me.
meemoe_uk says:
August 6, 2013 at 8:32 am
And I expect the new slow bow shock model will be falsified if and when voyager measures a new region of conditions further out the solar system.
So, your ‘expectation’ is now valid science?
Note that McComas is a co-author of the slow bow shock paper I cited. No ‘stubborn minded conservative NASA’ person bashing anything, but the person you quote in http://www.universetoday.com/95094/surprise-ibex-finds-no-bow-shock-outside-our-solar-system/ and in http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120510141957.htm
It is time for you to take your ball and go home rather than try to play with the big boys.
Here’s a question : Since the solar wind was measured to effectively cease in the region of voyager 1 in 2010, how is there going to be any bow shock at all?
Because the bow shock is not due to the solar wind ceasing, but to the solar system moving against the interstellar medium at 29 km/s.
Dr. Deanster says:
August 6, 2013 at 7:37 am
Speaking of the Sun … OT ..yes .. but … the Neutron Monitor at NWU has been updated.
http://143.160.38.244/webfm_send/42735
hmmm, when I embed that link in my html file the browser cannot find the plot. Any clues as to why not, or an alternate URL?
Try this doc
it is a low res (if you increase size it gets soft), you can link it to the .pdf file as http://143.160.38.244/webfm_send/42735
Try this doc
http://www.nwu.ac.za/webfm_send/62460
it is a low res (if you increase size it gets soft), then link it to the pdf as http://143.160.38.244/webfm_send/42735
vukcevic says:
August 6, 2013 at 10:03 am
http://www.nwu.ac.za/webfm_send/42735
it is a low res (if you increase size it gets soft), then link it to the pdf as…
Thanks, but it always works when used alone, the problem is to embed it in an html file not a pdf.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 6, 2013 at 9:18 am
Dr. Deanster says:
August 6, 2013 at 7:37 am
Speaking of the Sun … OT ..yes .. but … the Neutron Monitor at NWU has been updated.
http://143.160.38.244/webfm_send/42735
hmmm, when I embed that link in my html file the browser cannot find the plot. Any clues as to why not, or an alternate URL?
Hey Leif … can’t say. I just noticed on the page that the NWU NM plot stopped in 2011 .. so I went searching to see if I could find it. Found this page:
http://www.nwu.ac.za/neutron-monitor-data
On that page is an updated picture of the graph. There are two links on the page … one for data, and a pdf [the one I originally linked]. Ya might want to try this latest link and see if there is something on it that you can link to automatically update your presentation. 🙂
Hey Leif .. .try plugging in this ….
http://www.nwu.ac.za/webfm_send/62460
That is the URL that I get from right clicking on the picture on the page. Hope that helps. I really enjoy the solar reference page.
…. and since I’ve got your attention …. [ha!] …. tell me about the butterfly picture on the sun spot area. I know people have been comparing this cycle to 1905, but the butterfly picture is looking more like it will be more like the 1880 butterfly! What does this mean?? I know TSI is pretty much stable, but is the butterfly some indicator of total magnetic strength?? … or what?
The file http://143.160.38.244/webfm_send/42735 is in the .pdf format so you may not be able to imbed graphic directly.
I suggested to imbed the smaller graphic, make graphic itself the link to the above .pdf graph as:
+a href=http://143.160.38.244/webfm_send/42735+
+img src=http://www.nwu.ac.za/webfm_send/62460+
replace + sign by as appropriate since WUWT doesn’t accept above in the correct format
What an amazing string of comments on this interesting subject. The most amazing is the dutiful Leif fielding innumerable questions from the ‘family.’ What a guy…
Here is the htm with smaller graphic
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LS-link.htm
when you click on it goes to the larger pdf file graphic
Dr. Deanster says:
August 6, 2013 at 10:14 am
Hey Leif .. .try plugging in this ….
Thanks everybody. I have to do it as a two step process. You have to click to see the larger image. Arghhh.
Dr. Deanster says:
August 6, 2013 at 10:20 am
but is the butterfly some indicator of total magnetic strength?? … or what?
The butterfly diagram shows the latitude where the spots are, color coded as to how many there are.
Dr. Deanster says:
August 6, 2013 at 10:14 am
I really enjoy the solar reference page.
I have updated my webpage. The link still has to be updated on the Solar Reference Page
The Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) -F10.7-MF-SSN-Solar Activity Plot on the reference page should also be updated to:: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-Cycle-24.png
Hope somebody takes note of these updates….
Not to dumb down the comments, but would a person have to get a new compass on the sun when this flip occurs? In other words would north no be south?
*now be south?