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)
Great spiraling whirlpools ! Does any light from allegedly a long time ago and far far away get to travel the actual shortest possible distance ? Is anything really where we think it is ? 🙂
Carla says:
August 6, 2013 at 9:27 pm
One of my recent articles was stating that since cycle 10 there has been slowing in the equatorial region of the sun. And differential rotation does fluctuate from cycle to cycle and is even slower during a cycle like 24 as compared to 23.
Solar rotation slows when there are many sunspots and differential rotation also. “the more magnetic the Sun is, more rigid is its rotation”, http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf
Carla says:
August 6, 2013 at 9:36 pm
What is the polarity inversion line?
A sunspot group usually consists of some spots with one polarity and at the other end of the group some spots with the opposite polarity. If you draw a line separating spots with opposite polarities that is the ‘polarity inversion line’
Robert Taylor says:
August 6, 2013 at 9:39 pm
Any chance of larger than usual solar flares hitting the earth from September thru December?
I don’t think these months are any special.
Richard G says:
August 6, 2013 at 9:44 pm
What exactly is this “stuff”, the constituent parts that make up this “magnetic debris”? I presume it is composed of masses of charged plasma particles that have a magnetic field induced by kinetic motion and or electric current.
Yes, the stuff is plasma with a magnetic field that has been removed from the sunspot by motions in the atmosphere. It is misleading to [although you see it all the time] stress that a plasma is a mass of ‘charged particles’. All material bodies [yours included] is a mass of charged particles. What is different in a plasma is that the opposite charges can move around easily, whie in your body they are bound to each other.
Are there aggregations of heavier nuclei behaving analogous to a lava lamp?
No, the solar material as 99% Hydrogen and Helium and 1% heavier stuff scattered evenly throughout.
vukcevic says:
August 6, 2013 at 11:47 pm
“…he asked the question some of the readers may be puzzled by but reluctant to ask.”
—-
I subscribe to the notion that the only stupid question is the one isn’t asked.
Well since the earth’s magnetic field is not about to reverse (soon), this solar reversal implies (at least to me) that the net magnetic field in the sun-earth vicinity, will change somewhat (no idea how much). And that means that charged particles in our vicinity, will presumably follow slightly different trajectories, and land at different earth locations. Dunno how slightly this effect is, but this is part of the idea behind the Svensmark idea of “Cosmic” ray effect on cloud formation.
I get the concept, just don’t know if it of butterfly wing magnitude, or a detectable change.
Dr. Svalgaard probably knows the answer; I don’t.
Lief has made his solar predictions(to high in my opinion) ,others have made their solar predictions, let us see which are correct and which are wrong.
Then move on to the next step
@Salvatore Del Prete you should at least learn to spell Leif’s name if you are going to criticize him.
Hi George
I have an inkling what might be happening, but I am always castigated for mentioning it. It is not so much polar field reversal that matters, polar fields are very weak, it is the change of the sunspot polarity (at the time of the sunspot minima) that has the effect you may have in mind.
I’ve found some effect in the data, but to understand why sunspot may be given a polarity sign here is the brief intro:
Sunspots are usually generated in pairs and are associated with rise and fall of toroidal magnetic field. Sunspot magnetic field lines emerge from the solar interior through one of a sunspot pair, loop through the solar atmosphere, then re-enter the photosphere through the other member of the pair.
In accordance with the Zürich sunspot numbering convention the 22 yr magnetic cycles start on even numbered sunspot cycles. Any 22 yr magnetic cycle consists of two 11 yr sunspot cycles, manifesting itself in reversal of the magnetic polarity of sunspots from one 11 yr cycle to the next, known as the Hale’s law.
Sunspot magnetic reversals correspond to the changing polarity of the toroidal magnetic field (usually denoted as a B component). Direction of the magnetic vector in the northern hemisphere coincides with the direction of solar rotation during even-numbered cycles, B>0, while in the southern hemisphere B<0.
Relationship between direction of rotation and direction of the magnetic vector B is reversed during odd-numbered cycles)
Now that said here is result of my findings:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-LOD.htm
Oscillations in the LOD of 1-1.5ms pp isn’t great, but maximum change across last 150 years is about 5ms pp.
How and why this occur, difficult to say but this illustration from Potsdam
http://op.gfz-potsdam.de/champ/media_CHAMP/luehr_2_geodyn.gif
may give a clue since there are geomagnetic factors involved.
I do not believe it to be coincidence, but I do expect a furious denial from our doc Svalgaard.
Leif okay not Lief
Thanks
Anthony, it is a difference of opinion, nothing more.
vukcevic says:
August 7, 2013 at 11:34 am
“In accordance with the Zürich sunspot numbering convention the 22 yr magnetic cycles start on even numbered sunspot cycles. Any 22 yr magnetic cycle consists of two 11 yr sunspot cycles, manifesting itself in reversal of the magnetic polarity of sunspots from one 11 yr cycle to the next, known as the Hale’s law.”
You are speaking in general I assume because there is no real 11 year solar cycle other than number 1 (perhaps that is why it is referred to as the “11 year” cycle). Also, why do you start your 22 year magnetic cycle on even SCs and not odd SCs? Is that just a convenience or does it really matter?
No L SSN
1 11.0 87
2 9.0 106
3 9.2 154
4 13.6 131
5 12.1 47
6 12.9 46
7 10.6 71
8 9.6 138
9 12.5 125
10 11.2 96
11 11.7 139
12 10.7 64
13 12.1 85
14 11.9 66
15 10.0 104
16 10.2 78
17 10.4 110
18 10.1 152
19 10.6 190
20 11.6 105
21 10.3 155
22 9.8 158
23 12.1 120
Hi Tom
Yes, you are absolutely correct, it is convention of referring to SC as ’11 years long’, I doubt that even the SC1 was 11 year long.
I think we see a bit more of the sun’s N. Hemisphere, and in the even cycles magnetic vector is in the direction of rotation (B>0), so positive sign makes some sense. On the other hand, the convention possibly agreed for simplicity of memorising sequence, to my simple mind the even numbers are ‘nicer’, so positive is OK with me, a bit unfair on the SC1 though.
Leif,
Thanks so much for your generous contributions, sharing unique and profound knowledge.
Every time you post(you must be a fast typist), many thousands read it and hopefully a big portion of them learn something(like me).
Helping so many acquire knowledge on legit science in a world filled with junk science and propaganda makes you an honorable man and is worth more than millions of dollars.
Thanks also to Anthony for this great site.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 5, 2013 at 5:49 pm
It is not known why and the ‘cycle’ is likely just a temporary thing; it didn’t exist before 1700 and may not exist after 2013.
I’ve often wondered about this and I have pointed it out on this site before, it is presumed that the suns natural state of activity is that it always produces sunspots. when it seems likely that it can be spotless for long periods, maybe even centuries.
Could it be the case that over a period of millenia, sunspots appearing on the sun are less frequent than a spotless sun, could a spotless sun be the norm?
Or could it be that the sun somehow becomes disturbed or that the activity rises enough during regular periods to produce a few centuries of spot activity and the usual state of the sun is actually spotless?
even so, I’d expect that the magnetic cycle would still exist even if there were no visible spots. possibly we may have to record faculae to replace the sunspot record.
I clicked on the link in Ben D’s comment at 6.03 pm on 5th August. It’s one of the first comments on this thread. Norton anti-virus immediately warned me of an intrusion threat. Perhaps the moderators could disable that url from the comment?
george e. smith says:
August 7, 2013 at 11:03 am
that the net magnetic field in the sun-earth vicinity, will change somewhat (no idea how much). And that means that charged particles in our vicinity, will presumably follow slightly different trajectories, and land at different earth locations. Dunno how slightly this effect is, but this is part of the idea behind the Svensmark idea of “Cosmic” ray effect on cloud formation.
vukcevic says:
August 7, 2013 at 11:34 am
Hi George I have an inkling what might be happening, but I am always castigated for mentioning it. It is not so much polar field reversal that matters
For cosmic rays it is precisely the polar fields that matter. The ‘cosmic ray cycle’ goes from solar max to solar max [from polar field reversal to polar field reversal]. Not from min to min. And has nothing to do with the ‘toroidal field’ and polarities of sunspots.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 8, 2013 at 8:15 am
……..
Hi doc
The ‘cosmic ray cycle’ goes from solar max to solar max
Relationship of SSN and GCR count
http://www.climate4you.com/images/CosmicRaysAndSunspotsMonthlySince195801.gif
GCR ‘effect’ is greatest and the most important (at the highest count) at solar minima and at such times of the Dalton, Maunder and other Grand Minima; since the alternative notion of possible ‘Grand Maxima’ is wrong (Dr. Svalgaard) , thus low GCR is of no consequence beyond 11 years or 0.1C.
I was writing about possible interaction of solar and the Earth’s magnetic fields as demonstrated by content of the geomagnetic data.
At the Earth orbit.(And that means that charged particles in our vicinity…. as distinct from previous sentence in the sun-earth vicinity) it is not solar magnetic field alone that is the only modulator of the GCR, but it is the resultant vector of the two fields.
vukcevic says:
August 8, 2013 at 9:08 am
At the Earth orbit.(And that means that charged particles in our vicinity…. as distinct from previous sentence in the sun-earth vicinity) it is not solar magnetic field alone that is the only modulator of the GCR, but it is the resultant vector of the two fields.
Please, don’t try to pontificate on something you know nothing about [modulation has nothing to do with ‘resultant vector of the two fields’]. Cosmic ray modulation takes place in the outer heliosphere [not near the Earth] and depends on the extent of the HSC way out there and on the polarity of the solar poles, see e.g slide 17 of http://www.leif.org/research/Synoptic-Observations.pdf. The cosmic ray cycle alternates between flat-topped and peaked cycles depending on the polar fields.
Cosmic ray modulation takes place in the outer heliosphere and then again near the Earth by its changing magnetic field.
I only ‘parrot’ what I have learned from you:
…
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 11, 2009 at 4:21 am
The observed agreement between the strength of the Earth’s magnetic magnetic variation over the past 12,000 years and the cosmic ray intensity [14C] argues for no additional modulation from passing through clumps, etc [spiral galaxy or not].
Leif Svalgaard
Fig. 8: just shows that the Earth magnetic field keeps cosmic rays at bay. This is not controversial and has little [if anything] to do with climate on timescale of centuries or shorter.
vukcevic says:
August 8, 2013 at 11:01 am
I only ‘parrot’ what I have learned from you
A parrot also does not understand what it is saying
Hopefully this thread isn’t dead…
Even though it’s been stated the Sun’s polar magnetic flip hasn’t happened yet, both the graph at the top of this article and the one I linked to on solen.info show a zero-crossing or that the polar fields have crossed each other, respectively,.
I do understand that there is uncertainty in these latest measurements, but wouldn’t that also imply that there is some uncertainty in whether the poles have actually flipped yet? The article and NASA both state with no uncertainty that the poles have not yet flipped.
Just for my own information, how is it that it can be definitely stated that the flip has not yet happened, and what is the key indicator that the flip has actually occurred? What’s the criteria for a true indication?
the Hermit says:
August 8, 2013 at 11:15 am
Just for my own information, how is it that it can be definitely stated that the flip has not yet happened, and what is the key indicator that the flip has actually occurred? What’s the criteria for a true indication?
By convention the polar fields are the average field in the line of sight seen from the Earth in an area on the disk which is 1/11 th of the diameter of the Sun from the edge [the limb] near the pole. See Figure 1 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20Strength%20of%20the%20Sun%27s%20Polar%20Fields.pdf
The field undergoes an annual variation because the sun’s axis is inclined 7 degrees against the orbit of the Earth. The difference between the field measured at the North and South polar ‘black squares is one definition of the polar fields: That has already flipped: http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png
Another definition [also valid] would be when there is not a shred left of the old polarity at both poles [the real ones, not the apparent ones]. That has not quite happened yet, but soon, we think.
Thank you for clearing that up for me.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 8, 2013 at 11:05 am
A parrot also does not understand what it is saying
I never claimed I understood it, I just look at the data and observe what can be found there. Back to science:
McCracken, ex NASA:
The cosmic-ray record has been used to study the variations in the space climate, 1428–2005. Inversion of the data shows that the heliomagnetic field (HMF) near Earth increased steadily over the past 580 years,
Leif Svalgaard:
Now:
– Cosmic ray modulation takes place in the outer heliosphere [not near the Earth]
and before:
– observed agreement between the strength of the Earth’s magnetic magnetic variation over the past 12,000 years and the cosmic ray intensity [14C]
– Earth magnetic field keeps cosmic rays at bay.
до свидания
the Hermit says:
August 8, 2013 at 12:05 pm
Thank you for clearing that up for me.
I hope it was clear enough. It is kinda difficult to explain. Another [longer] explanation can be found in paragraphs 5-7 of http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
vukcevic says:
August 8, 2013 at 12:07 pm
McCracken, ex NASA:
The cosmic-ray record has been used to study the variations in the space climate, 1428–2005. Inversion of the data shows that the heliomagnetic field (HMF) near Earth increased steadily over the past 580 years,
The parrot still does not understand anything [and thus can’t do science]. The modulation takes place in the outer heliosphere. As the HMF near Earth travels with the solar wind to the outer hemisphere we can use the near-Earth HMF as a proxy for what the HMF will be much further out. It is convenient to express the modulation in terms of the near Earth HMF because we can then compare it with other measures of the HMF [e.g. from geomagnetism], but that is all.
Leif Svalgaard, is in a dream wolrd when it comes to what is currently taken place on the sun and the future climatic implications.
Leif has no regard for past history which lends support that the sun is much more variable then what he keeps trying to convey and that the solar conditions during the MAUNDER MINIMUM were very weak(aa index near 0 ,solar wind 200km/sec) and how this correlated to the very cold conditions at that time. In addition he keeps trying to down play the significance of how very very weak solar cycle 24 is and will be going forward.
This flip is nothing like a normal flip and I would not be surprised (as the prolonged solar minimum continues due to angular momentum exerted by the planets on the sun, which Leif also says is not correct) that this may be the last flip , or at the very least the future flips are going to be even less pronounced then even this one.
Leif, and the mainstream keep trying to play up the fact that the sun is acting the same now as it has all of last century which can not be further from the truth.
This cycle could be weaker then solar cycle 5, and is much weaker then solar cycle 14 . Layman sunspot counts and graphs which are correct show this clearly to be the case.
The AP index and solar flux going forward will end this debate, and as of today we have solar flux around 105 at the maximum ! It should be north of 150.
Also since Oct 2005 the AP index has been extremely low and I expect sub 5 will be the rule in the not to distant future, at least post 2015.
Once the solar parameters hit the levels I have been saying (see below) I list the potential secondary effects which could take place as a result.
1. solar flux sub 90 but better sub 72, less UV light less ozone more meridional atm. circulation ,more clouds,snow cover and precip.,higher albedo ,colder temp. N.H.
2. precipitation patterns changing can impact the thermohaline circulation perhaps slowing it down if precip increases substancially and adds more fresh water to the system.
3. solar wind sub 350 km/sec but better sub 300 km/sec, more cosmic rays more clouds ,higher albedo, colder temp. more geological activity especially in high latitudes.the geo magnetic field weakening of earth promoting this even more.
4. solar irradiance off .015% less visible light ocean heat content subsides
5. ap index 5 or lower with isolated spikes will cause the plates to be more unstable, more volcanic activity and earthquake activity. more shocks to the magnetosphere.
6. low solar in addition to being correlated with an increase in major volcanic activity and earthquakes in and around the solar minimums also can be tied to a cold pdo/amo. a cold pdo translates to more la ninas versus el ninos the result global cooling.
7. low solar actiivty having severe impacts to the Thermosphere and Ionopsphere.
Thermosphere will contract and cool substancially during a prolonged solar minimum which will inter act with all the other layers of the atmosphere.
This explanation is the ONLY explanation that can explain the many past abrupt climatic changes of the past both up and down. There are no other explanations from Milankovitch Cycles, to the Thermohaline circulation shutting down, to extra terrestrial impacts,to the sudden increases in greenhouse gases like methane or co2 etc etc.
The explanation above shows how the climate could be brought to thresholds if the solar parameters change in degree of magnitude strong enough and for a period of duration long enough following a sufficient number of years of sub- solar activity in general, which no other explanation is able to show.
Thresholds have to be met to flip the climate from one climatic regime to another. When the climate is in the same climatic regime changes are gradual and slow and always stay within particular boundaries.
I am still waiting for alternative explanations, have yet to see one.