![latest_512_4500[2]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/latest_512_45002.jpg)
Looks like a double peak for cycle 24 is forming
As many WUWT readers have noted in comments, October 2013 has been significantly more active than the previous several months, and we have not seen this level of activity since October 2011.
At right, is the sun today showing several sunspots of significant size. No splitting hairs on “sunspecks” is needed to elevate the count.
NOAA’s SWPC has updated their graphs, and for the first time in many months, the real data nearly matches the prediction line:
![sunspot[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/sunspot1.gif?resize=640%2C488)
The gain from last month is the largest uptick in solar cycle 24 so far.
Similarly, there was an uptick in 10.7cm radio flux, though it is not even close to the maximum gain seen back in mid 2011.
![f10[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/f101.gif?resize=640%2C488)
However, the Ap index, a proxy for the sun’s magnetic dynamo, continues to bump along the bottom, some thing it has been doing since October 2005, when a significant step change occurred. None of the peaks seen in Cycle 23 in 2004 have yet to be seen.
![Ap[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/ap1.gif?resize=640%2C488)
Steve Davidson writes of his analysis:
I created, from Belgium’s official counts, a graph very similar to NASA’s “Solar Cycle Sunspot Number Progression” graph maintained on WUWT’s “Solar Page”.
In my story I also review the current status of Solar Cycle 24 predictions and highlight Leif Svalgaard’s contributions to Cycle 24 understanding.
http://informthepundits.wordpress.com/2013/11/01/october-2013-sunspots-huge-jump/
David Hathaway has also updated his page at NASA Marshall saying:
The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 65 in the Summer of 2013. The smoothed sunspot number has already reached 67 (in February 2012) due to the strong peak in late 2011 so the official maximum will be at least this high. The smoothed sunspot number has been flat over the last four months. We are currently over four years into Cycle 24. The current predicted and observed size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle since Cycle 14 which had a maximum of 64.2 in February of 1906.
His plot:
![ssn_predict_l[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/ssn_predict_l1.gif?resize=640%2C480)
As always, there’s more of interest on WUWT’s Solar Reference Page
I noticed that also, seemed to really get active after a large commit took a plunge into the sun on October 10-11. Not sure if it was responsible for sparking the most ever avtive period in sunspot cycle 24?
Video.
http://www.spaceweather.com/images2013/10oct13/sundiver2_anim.gif?PHPSESSID=ojnjgvjuv3g9i7gdhh74419k27
I wish you would not jump on the [dumbed-down] double peak bandwagon. As in previous weak cycles there will be multiple peaks, cycle 14 coming to mind: http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl14.html
Thanks Leif,
That is interesting about Cycle 14.
What do you think Leif, commit had and influence??
Thanks
Sunsots? I hope this does not mean the Sun has become besotted by Al Gore and company.
sunsots: solar astronomers with a serious drinking problem
” and for the first time in many months, the real data nearly matches the prediction line:”
except to get the smoothed figure up to the prediction there would have needed to be a jump up to about 125.
If anything bad is happening to the Sun, it is because of man-made CO2 here on the earth. Don’t laugh, because Al Gore told me so.
Chris @NJSnowFan says:
November 4, 2013 at 8:17 am
What do you think Leif, commit had and influence??
Garbled?
Bloke down the pub says:
November 4, 2013 at 8:38 am
” and for the first time in many months, the real data nearly matches the prediction line:”
At the time I pointed out that even 90 was to high. I was suggesting 70 was more in line with the data, but that was too large a step down for the Panel. For practical purposes there is no real difference between 90 and 70, so I didn’t belabor the difference.
Sunspots: the solar equivalent of phrenology? While indicative of underlying processes/happenings, they appear to be more of a sporadic or spurious ‘product’ that a nice linearly-coupled indication of those underlying ‘processes’.
Just an observation from these quarters …
.
It is time for Hathaway to publish his predicted date for the next solar minimum. Since he believes we are at cycle 24 peak, this should be a dead-certain piece of cake.
If cycle 24 will not be double-peaked, at least it will have a secundary maximum.
I am speaking here of the *smoothed* monthly means, not of the actual monthly means.
We’re going to test the famous theory. Sunspot cycle length and temperature…
Well… I’m not a scientist at all just a computer programmer but i have this thought which I must tell someone.
@Leif, just tell me I’m wrong and how (99.9% certainty I’m wrong), I admire you very much as an honest scientist and won’t mind in the least bit at all.
The sun has 2 hemispheres which circulate the magnetic field in each hemisphere. When the speeds are close everything is as we have been seeing for centuries. When one goes faster or slower than a specific point it causes a core eddy which traps the magnetic fields in the center of the sun causing a lack of sunspots.
There… I said it.
@chris
I think you mean a comet.
So what? The activity passed from the northpole to the southpole, we have the second uptick in activity and from now, we exspect the typical slowdown.Sun seems to be on the way to a grand minimum! We’ll see with the November and December sunspotcounts!
@Nik – Myself. Have I just explained how variable stars work? Oh my?
Thanks, Anthony.
Good reporting.
Chris @NJSnowFan, I think you mean comet, sir.
This double-peak business may be just looking for a pattern where there is none, but this has been an exceptionally weak cycle so far. Maybe it really is the beginning of a new grand minima – or maybe I’m guilty of pattern-seeking, too.
Nik says:
November 4, 2013 at 9:16 am
When one goes faster or slower than a specific point it causes a core eddy which traps the magnetic fields in the center of the sun causing a lack of sunspots
There is no doubt that different circulations are involved, although your specific explanation is not how it works.
Jean Meeus says:
November 4, 2013 at 9:01 am
I am speaking here of the *smoothed* monthly means, not of the actual monthly means.
The smoothed means also had several peaks: http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_similar_cycles.png
< The smoothed means also had several peaks.
If the smoothed monthly means are calculated with the formula I published in the Belgian journal 'Ciel et Terre' in 1958, one obtains a more smoother curve.
Jean Meeus says:
November 4, 2013 at 9:46 am
If the smoothed monthly means are calculated with the formula I published in the Belgian journal ‘Ciel et Terre’ in 1958, one obtains a more smoother curve.
One can always find a formula that will remove any peaks one wants to remove. The point is that a simple double peak is too simplistic if just based on the yo-yo sunspot number numbers. One could justify a ‘double peak’ by pointing out that the Northern Hemisphere peaked first and that now [perhaps] the Southern Hemisphere is peaking, see Figure 7 of http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf
Leif,
With my formula I did not want to remove peaks, but I just wanted to obtain a smoother curve. The “official” smoothing formula gives practically the same weight to 13 successive monthly means, which is rather odd. On the contrary, in my formula I give more weights to the central months.
For the interested persons, my formula uses the following weights for the 13 successive months:
1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 10, 9, 7, 5, 3, and 1.
Over at GWPF they have an article about how NASA has a tendency to way over count sunspots.
http://www.thegwpf.org/solar-activity-big-headlines/
Yes I meant COMET
One typo has nothing to do with a simple question.
Dam mobile phone device makes more typos then me.
Leif did not answer my question so I assume he has no idea?
I
njsnowfan, your question was incoherent so could not be answered. Your follow up is simply rude, so if I were Leif I would ignore it. Try being polite.
How the solar northern hemisphere has changed is a predictor of how the solar southern hemisphere will change. Look at the solar visual and solar magnetogram. The solar northern hemisphere is roughly 14 months ahead of the solar southern hemisphere. The so called dual peak is the fact that the solar southern hemisphere lags the northern hemisphere.
What we are currently observing in the solar southern hemisphere is what occurred in the solar northern hemisphere. Why is the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots decaying linearly? How will that change affect the solar magnetic cycle if it extrapolated? Observations indicate it is continuing.
As I noted the standard solar sunspot model has the creation of the magnetic flux tubes that rise up to the surface of the sun to form sunspots on the surface, formed in the region which is the interface between the solar convection zone and the solar radiative zone which is called the tachocline.
Magnetic flux tubes are buoyant, they float up through the convection zone. Calculations indicate that if the magnetic flux tubes that form sunspots on the surface sun where formed in the convection zone they would rise up to surface of the sun before reaching the necessary field strength to form sunspots on the surface of the sun.
Lief has a proposed an alternative mechanism to create flux tubes where the magnetic flux tubes are formed in the convection zone. So far he has provided no logic or observational evidence to support the convection zone hypothesis beyond a single sentence comment that the convection zone hypothesis is simpler than tachocline hypothesis.
A prosecuting attorney does not attempt to prosecute the next door neighbor for a murder with the comment to the judge that it is simpler as he has the next door neighbor in custody and it is a pain to find the true murderer and to develop a logical case to convince a neutral informed group that he has solved the problem, to convict the true murderer. It does not matter whether a hypothesis is or is not simple, the question is it physically correct?
Sorry, I Was not trying to be rude.
That comet that took the plunge on 10/10-11 was the largest I have ever observed since I started studying the sun in 2007.
Looks like something to lean to a warm December at least (more positive nao)?
Dr. Svalgaard: “The smoothed means also had several peaks: http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_similar_cycles.png”
Have you adjusted the data for SC14 for the Waldmeier discontinuity? If so, you’ll see how much stronger SC14 was and how much more spiky than SC24 untill now…
Largest jump in Solar Cycle 24 …..
It is simple …. planets
http://daltonsminima.altervista.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Configurazione-planetaria-23-10-2013.jpg
Venus, Earth approaching Jupiter with transit of Mercury
While this has to do with sunspot cycle #24 and it’s weak cycle over all. I have been reading report and the so called warmist have been saying strong winds at Antarctic have increased over the years causing Record sea ice lately and caused by Global Warming. A bunch of BS I feel.
From what I have learned, low solar activity heats the stratosphere ( opposite of what one may think that are not educated on the subject). Result is expanding the air, pushing down on the troposphere increases winds, pushing the cold air out away from the S Pole. That would explain the increase in winds making for record sea ice extent?
Stratospheric warming only seems to be factor during winter months at both N And S poles.
Am I right or wrong??
Leif,
If weak solar cycles have asynchronous hemispherical sunspot activity and strong solar cycles have synchronous hemispherical sunspot activity then obviously the current weak cycle will exhibit asynchronous sunspot activity, which means the sunspot activity was expected to peak on the northern hemisphere first and then it was expected to peak on the southern hemisphere, this is what has occurred, the northern hemisphere has peaked and now the southern hemisphere is peaking, that’s, um lets count the peaks.
What will be interesting is if after the current activity on the southern hemisphere decreases, will the northern hemisphere peak again? and will it be followed by the southern hemisphere, as this is the first time any of us have observed the behavior and experienced first hand such a weak cycle no one can be sure, but I would expect it would depend on when the next sunspot minimum will occur, what is your date for the next sunspot minimum 2017? 2018? 2019? 2020? or are you just throwing blind curves into the future.
Below is an example of synchronous hemispherical sunspot activity.
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/larsspgr.jpg
Michele says:
November 4, 2013 at 12:43 pm
Largest jump in Solar Cycle 24 …..
It is simple …. planets
Venus, Earth approaching Jupiter with transit of Mercury
Altho I am intrested in a posible relationship between the suns activity and the orbital peramiters of the gas giants, your comment makes this line of astronomical research sound like Astrology, I would not be surprised if this was your intention.
OMG, more runny means!
If they would use a proper filter to “smooth” their data the peak in “smoothed montly values” might actually line up with peak in the data (rather than invert it).
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=593
This is a classic example of the kind of data distoration that I highlight in my article on here:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/triple-running-mean-filters/
The peak value would a little nearer their predicted value too.
lsvalgaard says:
I wish you would not jump on the [dumbed-down] double peak bandwagon. As in previous weak cycles there will be multiple peaks, cycle 14 coming to mind: http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl14.html
===
Cool, there’s a whole other bunch of peaks that are inverted and mis-placed. So now we can compare the inverted peaks of cycle 14 with those of cycle24.
I do have a question. Lately sunspot activity is taking place almost entirely on the southern hemisphere. Activity on the northern hemisphere remains very low. My question is: did this also happen during previous solar cycles? In these graphs we see only the total number of sunspots, but not how they are and were divided on each hemisphere. Some people think solar activity on the NH will remain very low during the rest of this cycle and that activity on the SH will follow that same pattern soon. We will know in a few years time. Like Niels Bohr used to say: It is always difficult to make predictions, especially when it concerns the future.
I want to thank Steve D. @nynjpawerther and Joe B @bigjoebastardi for over the years bringing to attention of the effects of how solar activity effects the stratosphere resulting in Arctic cold air being pushed south away from the Arctic regions. Same situation happens at the Antarctic region.
A Tweet response from meteorologist Steve G @nynjpaweather confirms my claims about lower solar activity warms stratosphere.
https://mobile.twitter.com/nynjpaweather/status/397461528359993344
Jean Meeus says:
November 4, 2013 at 10:32 am
The “official” smoothing formula gives practically the same weight to 13 successive monthly means, which is rather odd.
No doubt, the official formula is not very good, but it is ‘official;, so people stick with it.
BradProp1 says:
November 4, 2013 at 10:55 am
Over at GWPF they have an article about how NASA has a tendency to way over count sunspots.
Actually, they do not over count. What goes on is that SIDC [by convention] tries to match counts done by Wolf [who did not count little spots, in order to be compatible with Schwabe -(who discovered the sunspot cycle)]. Back in the 1880s it was decided to count every spot that could be seen, so in order to be compatible with Wolf and thus with Schwabe it was determined [by parallel counting over 17 years] that the ‘count-all’ sunspot number should be multiplied by 0.60 to match the old ‘dont-count-all’ sunspot number. NASA reports the raw count with no attempt to match Wolf.
@njsnowfan says:
November 4, 2013 at 10:56 am
Leif did not answer my question so I assume he has no idea?
This has come up several times. There is no good evidence that a comet can trigger solar eruptions.
William Astley says:
November 4, 2013 at 10:59 am
Leif has a proposed an alternative mechanism to create flux tubes where the magnetic flux tubes are formed in the convection zone.
This is not my proposal, but the mechanism favored by an increasing number of solar physicists. The major blow to the tachocline-mechanism is the [now firm] observational data showing that the meridional circulation that was supposed to carry the seed-field down below the convection zone is actually not deep enough and doesn’t go that far down, but is instead more of a surface phenomenon. There are also good theoretical reasons and modelling for a shallow dynamo or at least a dynamo working through the whole convection zone and not at the tachocline: http://talks.cam.ac.uk/talk/index/12842
Frank says:
November 4, 2013 at 11:59 am
Have you adjusted the data for SC14 for the Waldmeier discontinuity? If so, you’ll see how much stronger SC14 was and how much more spiky than SC24 untill now…
SC14 was probably stronger than SC24. The spikiness may be the result of the SC14 counts were based on one observer per day only, while SC24 is based on something like 60 observers throughout the day. An average is usually smoother than a single count series. But it could also just be that the sun is ‘messy’ and no two cycles are really alike.
Sparks says:
November 4, 2013 at 1:45 pm
what is your date for the next sunspot minimum 2017? 2018? 2019? 2020? or are you just throwing blind curves into the future.
Well, it is not completely blind. The run of the cycle is usually well set when we are halfway through, so Hathaway’s estimate of 2021 is likely to be good: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif
If we look at earlier part of the “prediction” no shown in the posted graphs the peak at the end of 2011 would have been right on the NASA curve. Though it obviously doesn’t match the peak of the prediction at least it touched it.
http://informthepundits.wordpress.com/2013/11/01/october-2013-sunspots-huge-jump/
Thanks Leif for answer.
Argaris. Yes
Scroll down to butterfly map.http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/solar/
Sorry I posted this on wrong trend in response to ken.
Snip it Anthony
Thanks Chris
What’s the probability that we are seeing the peak?
Jean Meeus: If the smoothed monthly means are calculated with the formula I published in the Belgian journal ‘Ciel et Terre’ in 1958, one obtains a more smoother curve.
For the interested persons, my formula uses the following weights for the 13 successive months:
1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 10, 9, 7, 5, 3, and 1.
===
Your series look rather like the impuse response of the triple running mean , how did you create it?
lsvalgaard says:
November 4, 2013 at 2:44 pm
Well, it is not completely blind. The run of the cycle is usually well set when we are halfway through, so Hathaway’s estimate of 2021 is likely to be good:
I know, I was just teasing… the end of 2017 to the beginning of 2018 looks good to me for the beginning of the next minimum.
William Astley says:
November 4, 2013 at 10:59 am
Leif has a proposed an alternative mechanism to create flux tubes where the magnetic flux tubes are formed in the convection zone.
This is not my proposal, but the mechanism favored by an increasing number of solar physicists. The major blow to the tachocline-mechanism is the [now firm] observational data showing that the meridional circulation that was supposed to carry the seed-field down below the convection zone is actually not deep enough and doesn’t go that far down, but is instead more of a surface phenomenon. There is an article in Physics Today on this very topic http://www.leif.org/EOS/PT-3-2165-Meridional-Circulation.pdf
“The results could prove problematic for some solar dynamo theories. In particular, one popular class of models—the so-called flux-transport dynamo models—has long relied on a single circulation cell to explain phenomena associated with the 11-year solar activity cycle. For instance, sunspots—cool, dark patches on the solar surface that form when magnetized plasma bubbles up from the convective zone’s floor—appear at mid latitudes early in the cycle and at progressively lower latitudes as the cycle proceeds.
Flux-transport dynamo models attribute that equatorward migration to the meridional flow at the bottom of the convective zone. But in a two-cell pattern—or any even-celled pattern—that flow is toward the poles, not the equator”
” If those studies don’t reveal a third reversal, there may be little wiggle room left for flux-transport dynamo models of the solar cycle.”
Leif
your thoughts
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2013/11/aa22373-13/aa22373-13.html
The Sun is increasing its defenses in response to comet Ison. Just like it did to PannSTARRS back in 2011.
Anthony, what time is it in Chico? 😉
[East coast time -3:00. Or, spaced-out time minus 65 years from reality. Mod]
Svalgaard, L.,E. W. Cliver, and Y. Kamide (2005), Sunspot cycle 24: Smallest
cycle in 100 years?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L01104, doi:10.1029/
2004GL021664.
” Using direct polar field measurements, now available
for four solar cycles, we predict that the approaching solar
cycle 24 (~2011 maximum) will have a peak smoothed
monthly sunspot number of 75 ± 8, making it potentially the
smallest cycle in the last 100 years.”
Well if NASA know how to smooth data, you’d have been bang on. 😉
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=593
Hi, Anthony,
Well, up here in Washington… (waaaay to the left (ugh), I know), we’re now an hour behind you in Chico. Hm. Earthquake? Plate tectonics?
Janice
(or — sssh! — are you now using Mountain Time just to through those NSA thugs off the track?
— Good thinking!) #(:))
THROW — we are sooo behind, we’re even poor at spelling, up here! (why in the world did I do that?)
Steven Mosher says:
November 4, 2013 at 3:25 pm
your thoughts
I didn’t know there was a problem [I think there isn’t]. Wolf increased the Schwabe numbers by 25% based on Declination from Milan, see slide 6 of
http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic%20Calibration%20of%20Sunspot%20Numbers.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard11.pdf
But I have not had time to read their paper yet. Do you have a link to a copy?
Cool! Dr. Svalgaard went BACK in time to post that. You are even more impressive than we already knew, Dr. S! (can I drive the DeLorean next time?)
One wonders when we can expect some additional X class events as we ride the solar coaster.
Hence, my question relating to the appearance\frequency of X class events and the solar cycle in general. We did have several good ones in the last few weeks.
One wonders how technologically vulnerable we have become too, no?
Think about it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, What if you phone didn’t start in the morning and you couldn’t get to work? 😉
(lol, OssQss)
Upon waking up and — WHOA! phone is busted! –!!!
Pippen Kook: Oh, man. I can’t call Oss for a ride. HOW AM I GOING TO GET TO WORK?!!!
Oss (45 minutes later, pulling up in Corvette by curb — honks horn): Hey! I KNEW you’d be calling me for a ride (muttering: ever since I got this car, her car has needed all its spark plugs replaced).
PK: Thank you so much! My phone is my only way to get ANYTHING done!
Oss: Better get those plugs replaced — TODAY — my microwave oven is starting to die, er, …. or something. If I can even start my car in the morning, I definitely won’t be able to drive 5 miles out of my way to pick you up……. AND WHERE’S THAT GAS MONEY YOU KEEP SAYING YOU’LL PAY!
Awareness is the key to survival (in any circumstance!); we are more aware now than we were 30 or 40 years ago. Specifically speaking in regards to commercial AC power transmission now. Don’t fall victim to the continual media ‘hype’ from authors who are not up to speed on measures taken to avoid damage to transmission equipment (like transformers due to GICs – Geomagnetically Induced Currents in the lines WRT the ‘earthed’ or neutral side.)
On account of what exactly (did you have something specific in mind?) Today’s cell sites are linked back to the MTSO via fiber optic links (not sat circuits!) traditionally provisioned and tariffed to the equivalent of DS0 thru DS3 trunks.
.
Oh, _Jim. Puh–leeze. Could YOU get anything done without a phone? #(;))
Grammar edit: “None of the peaks seen in Cycle 23 in 2004 have yet to be seen.” Double negative. Get rid of “None of” or replace “yet to be” with “been”. Your choice. ;p
Jim, my point is not a point, but a question.
How will todays micro circuitry act in an anomalous solar event?
I recalled this video from a few years ago and thought, how much would it take to disrupt this circuit in a chip that controlls a device? I am certain the military has an idea. Just sayin, think about it>
Janice;
After an EMP — what work?
As for time zones, I’m a pretend resident of MST until Sunday, when I will accept the PST internet feed again.
I don’t understand the comment. Janice. Unlike a lot of posters here, I’ve got actual ‘field’ experience operating (provisioning, specifying, overseeing implementation by ops personnel or a contractor) some of these ‘larger’ systems, and, I’ve made the effort to research and understand the others where I don’t have DRE (directly related experience) but can relate having pursued a career in engineering and therefore object to the ‘hype’ proffered by the attention-seeking, technically-ignorant, rumor-mongering ‘press’ … so, back to – what was the implication again?
.
Overblown; we’ve been over this; check the archives.
The ‘power fails’ cited early on in Hawaii after the Starfish Prime detonation as the basis for these rumors actually turned out to be a few series-wired street light strings that were problematic to start with. Note: said antiquated street light strings have long since been replaced.
.
I wonder if there will be a similar event to the one that occurred on March 15, this year when sunspot 1692 produced a 36 minute M1 Earth directed flare. This flare hit Earth nearly 2 days later when there was little solar magnetic activity and this resulted in the magnetic field lines of the the Earth and Sun combining and channeling a large amount of plasma into the North Pole region creating large auroras on March 17, 18 and 19. According to NASA the polar stratosphere heated up 60 deg celsius, which in turn stopped the vortex and then significantly affected the jet streams causing polar air to flood over parts of Europe and North America. The Arctic Oscillation fell below -5 for 3 days, which had only occurred 4 times previously (Feb 1969, March 1970, Dec 2009 and Feb 2010). A huge high pressure system formed over Greenland (1074 mb). This was the highest ever recorded in Greenland and this apparently temporarily destabilised the North American tectonic plate and caused worries about major earthquakes on either San Andreas fault line or the New Madrid fault line. (Note: the last really big quakes on the New Madrid fault line occurred in February 1812 – is there a connection as that winter in Europe was extremely cold?)
It seems that we could have a lot to fear from sporadic flare activity – particularly when the overall magnetic activity of the sun is low.
Too broad a question; where, for starters? In orbit is a different matter vs surface of the earth, inside an atmosphere for instance …
.
Jim, all atmosphere’s would be “where” Solar events don’t discriminate.
The answer in the end is? We don’t know.
Bzzzt. Not completely true. Your earlier line of inquiry suggested what I perceived as ‘effects on satellites’, which can be affected due to charged particle impingement vs in-the-atmosphere where that is not an issue, hence my question to narrow things down.
You want to read about GIC effects (terrestrial, in-the-atmosphere) only and the effect on power grids? Here’s a fairly good return by google on the subject; skip the ‘pop’ websites and pick a few of the pdf sources from industry or edu sites, like these two:
1) “Hydro One GMD Preparedness Plan for Cycle 24”
http://www.nerc.com/docs/pc/gmdtf/Hydro%20One%20GMD%20Preparedness%20Plan%20for%20Cycle%2024.pdf
2) “Effects of Geomagnetically Induced Currents on Power Transformers and
Power Systems”
http://www05.abb.com/global/scot/scot252.nsf/veritydisplay/cbd31097f5bd26bfc1257b16002e30f1/$file/A2_304_Cigre2012_1LAB000513_Effects%20of%20geomagnetically%20induced%20currents%20on%20power%20transformers%20and%20power%20systems.pdf
More papers on GIC effects:
https://www.google.com/search?q=gic+currents+effects+power+transformers&oq=GIC+currents&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0.5014j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#es_sm=93&espv=210&q=gic+currents+effects+power+transformers&start=20
For those more inclined to review an audio-visual review of GIC-related subjects:
Man, _Jim, is my sense of humor THAT off the grid? Wow. I am REALLY a fish out of water here. I think I need to go make a phone call … . (THAT WAS A JOKE) Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt (that I was intelligent enough to be attempting a serious response above, lol).
@Ossqss — was your 😉 NOT a wink indicating your no-phone-oh-no-how-to-work statement was a joke? Did YOU get my humor?? Well, you certainly didn’t think it was worth dignifying with a comment. Sorry for the whining — I’m just tired.
Oh, brother.
Sorry, _Jim, for the annoying confusion for you. I wasn’t trying to be a pain — it just comes naturally, heh. Hope all is well with you. I’m still grateful for your kind remarks of about a month ago.
*****************
#(:)) Oh, Brian H — Now, you really (wink) meant you will remain in MST (whisper — how are you going to fool those Dopebama thugs otherwise, yes, they are dumb, but….. now, next Sunday, walk nonchalantly for a couple of miles toward MST land, loudly talking about staying there (then, duck behind a bunch of illegal aliens from south of thee [border] — they’ll never look there — and hustle back to PST ……)).
[Thee border or thy border? Their border? Marked by “Partially sagebrush, rosemary, and thyme?” Mod]
Jim, thanks for the links and Sorry I was a bit amorphous in my postings.
Janice, my bad. It was a Long Monday as a small business owner……
Asta La kiesters to today. Tomorrow is another day >
As my grandma always said…….
When you wake up and don’t see roots, it is a beautiful day!
Oh the irony for me and U2>
My copy of the Nov 2 Science news arrived today. The cover story is “Solar Fizzle – Learning from the sun’s recent doldrums.” Apparently it hasn’t made it onto their web site yet. Good timing, Sun!
It starts with
Hathaway is mentioned and “Stanford University scientists announced that they too had found that the meridional flow was happening at a relatively shallow depth. The team, led by Junwei Zhao….” No mention of Leif (who’s mostly retired) and too busy over here anyway. 🙂
I was pleased to see:
Hathaway gets the last word:
Science News used to be my main source of, well, science news, especially after Scientific American went off course. These days WUWT’s the first stop, and I fondly regard Livingston and Penn’s work the most interesting thing I’ve learned here.
Most everything in the SN article has been reported here by Leif, some of it years ahead of SN.
Thanks Leif!
Hi leif, OT but i thought you’d like to know. I changed my mind again on the source of Earth’s electric field. Our last exchange ended with me finding a paper on a cloud simulation experiment which found super cooled water droplets mixing with ice causes major charge separation and I accepted this as the basis of the water weather cycle being a major causal in the Earth electric field.
Well I decided to unaccept it. I realised that the experiment itself was conducted in earth’s electric field, without which the opposite charges wouldn’t be separated. Charge separation in clouds is an amplifying effect of the Earth’s electric field, but not a significant cause. Causes are between the Earth and space.
As you’ve pointed out to me a few times recently, plasma filled space is very conductive, so can hold very little voltage drop, so it acts like a conducting wire between an object in space and the other objects in space. e.g. the Earth is effectively connected to the solar corona electrically.
Why should Earth have the same surface voltage as the corona? The electric field of the Earth is a result of an external voltage and Earth’s natural voltage.
Why the Earth likes to be 10^7V to space is interesting to speculate. If the Earth was just an electrically dumb conductor it would just take roughly same voltage as space over a relatively short period of time. That’s it’s high voltage persists means it has its own emf generator, I reckon of subsurface origin ( not the water weather ).
@Ossqss — you are too generous, but, thank you. Not your bad. My poor execution of humor.
A small business owner — you are my hero! Thank you for getting up every day and doing what makes America strong — provide jobs (THAT (unlike sitting around in the street on a sleeping bag blocking traffic and holding a sign) is “doing something to change the world”). (even if you only provide a job for yourself at this time, that is terrific). You go, O’s and Q’s!
I hope that the rest of the week goes GREAT.
*******************
Oh, M-ode-erator, you silly. #(:)) Fun humor. Well….. I was TRYING to write an espanol accent so it was like theeeees: Seeeet down theerrrrrre next to the borrrrrrder — and don’t get up until the southbound bus pulls up… . (this is ONLY aimed at those who enter the U.S. illegally)
*************************************
Okay. It has been over 2 hours since anyone but me has posted. I hope it’s okay to go ahead and post a birthday greeting to CODE TECH. (his birthday is tomorrow, but I don’t want to miss in case he checks in and out before I’m up… I told him I’d be posting something, sure hope he sees this)
!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, CODE TECH!
People in your age group often stop and look up in the middle of a busy life and, for the first time, realize that their dreams are not coming true as fast as they had hoped they would. Reality bites. Reassessment can be a good thing, but, don’t give up. You are not even half-way to the end of the road. Take a deep breath and look around you. Life is beautiful. As long as you are breathing, there is hope. So, pause, for awhile…… but, then, get up….. and keep on walking and
Hold on Tight to Your Dreams
Teddy Roosevelt
I believe in you!
Your WUWT pal,
Janice
#(:))
!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!
On the German MSM, they are now saying scientists are fearing a new possible iceage, omg-omg !!
https://www.focus.de/wissen/weltraum/astronomie/tid-34401/schwaechster-sonnenzyklus-seit-100-jahren-warum-eine-neue-eiszeit-bevorstehen-koennte_aid_1143696.html
Well, can’t get get Firefox ( google translate ) to work so i can read your link, Matt, any chance you have a source in English ?
Janice Moore November 4, 2013 at 4:14 pm
Anthony, what time is it in Chico? 😉
And while you are at it what time is it in Harpo?
I wonder what triggered that descent into the bit bucket?
Steve in Seattle says: …
Stick the title , in quotation marks, into google. Then click of ‘translate’ option.
Janice Moore says:
Okay. It has been over 2 hours since anyone but me has posted. I hope it’s okay to go ahead and post a birthday greeting to CODE TECH.
====
perhaps you could save that kind of inane drivel for Facebook, Twitter or something. It would be nice if posts here had at least something to do the subject.
lsvalgaard says:
[cite] Jean Meeus says:
November 4, 2013 at 10:32 am
The “official” smoothing formula gives practically the same weight to 13 successive monthly means, which is rather odd.[/cite]
No doubt, the official formula is not very good, but it is ‘official;, so people stick with it.
===
Perhaps next time Dr. Svalgaard is involved with NASA Group B or NOAA he could suggest they adopt a more appropriate filter.
If we can spend billions of dollars studying solar activity, it seems pretty dumb to invert the results in the final step by using a crappy filter.
Sure is a shame the Lief’s rather remarkable prediction was correct but looks wrong because someone can’t “smooth” the data.
Steve:
https://www.focus.de/wissen/weltraum/astronomie/tid-34401/schwaechster-sonnenzyklus-seit-100-jahren-warum-eine-neue-eiszeit-bevorstehen-koennte_aid_1143696.html
Forscher befürchten neue Kleine Eiszeit
Der aktuelle Sonnenzyklus gibt Forschern Rätsel auf. Er war der schwächste der vergangenen hundert Jahre und zeigt weitere ungewöhnliche Veränderungen. Sollte sich der Trend fortsetzen, könnte eine neue Kleine Eiszeit bevorstehen.
Translate:
Researchers fear new Little Ice Age
The current solar cycle gives researchers a mystery. It is the weakest of the last hundred years, and shows other unusual changes. Should the trend continue, a new Little Ice Age could be imminent.
The article continues:
Das genstupit globalen varmista est einen groupen de nazistupen unt das puppygenschtompers.
Sorry, my German is a bit rusty – I can’t quite decipher the last part. ;-}
Greg says:
Sure is a shame the Leif’s rather remarkable prediction was correct but looks wrong because someone can’t “smooth” the data.
___________
Actually, within reasonable accuracy Greg, I suggest that Leif was correct.
From memory:
Leif predicted SSNmaz for SC 24 in 2005 at 75. The current prediction is 65 and may be revised slightly upwards – close enough in this business.
In 2006, NASA (Hathaway et al) predicted SC24 SSNmax at circa 160 – not so good.
Regards, Allan
In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
November 4, 2013 at 2:44 pm
William Astley says:
November 4, 2013 at 10:59 am
Leif has a proposed an alternative mechanism to create flux tubes where the magnetic flux tubes are formed in the convection zone.
This is not my proposal, but the mechanism favored by an increasing number of solar physicists. The major blow to the tachocline-mechanism is the [now firm] observational data showing that the meridional circulation that was supposed to carry the seed-field down below the convection zone is actually not deep enough and doesn’t go that far down, but is instead more of a surface phenomenon. There are also good theoretical reasons and modelling for a shallow dynamo or at least a dynamo working through the whole convection zone and not at the tachocline: http://talks.cam.ac.uk/talk/index/12842
William:
A paradox is an observation or an analysis result that cannot be explained by a mechanism/hypothesis. A paradox indicates that the hypothesis or mechanism is incorrect.
The hypothesis that the magnetic flux tubes are formed in the convection zone was rejected as the magnetic flux tubes are buoyant; which is the reason why the magnetic flux tubes rise up from where they are created to form sunspots on the surface of the sun. Sunspots have a magnetic field strength of 1500 gauss to 4000 gauss. There is not sufficient time (it will rise up to the surface of the sun too soon) for a magnetic flux tube to form with sufficient magnetic field strength in the convection zone; there is no physical mechanism to hold the forming magnetic flux tube in the convection zone.
It is for the above reason that the standard hypothesis for the formation of the magnetic flux tubes moved from the convection zone to the tachocline, the interface between the convection zone and the radiative zone which is believed to be narrow region with minimal turbulence.
As you note very recent seismological analysis has found the meridional circulation that was supposed to carry the residue sunspot from a previous cycle down to the convection zone to form the seed to form new sunspots doesn’t not now go deep enough, the meridional circulation does not reach the tachocline and hence does not now carry the seed to form the magnetic flux tubes in the tachocline.
There are now multiple paradoxes: magnetic flux tubes of sufficient magnetic field strength cannot form in the convection zone as they are buoyant and the magnetic residue of sunspots is no longer being carried down to the tachocline to form the magnetic flux tubes there. As noted, however, it is possible the observed height of the meridional circulation is a change and normally the meridional circulation does reach down to the tachocline. It is possible we are observation a rare once in 8000 to 10,000 year special state the sun moves through.
Now in addition to the above paradox there is a requirement that whatever mechanism forms the magnetic flux tubes must explain why the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspot is decaying linearly which logically requires the magnetic flux tubes that form the sunspots to decaying linearly. Observationally and as expected theoretically a consequence of the magnetic field strength of the flux tubes declining linearly is that the flux tubes are being torn apart in the convection zone so what forms on the surface of the sun is a complex sunspot group with mixed polarities and what forms is smaller and smaller sunspots. If the magnetic field strength of the magnetic flux tubes continues to decline the magnetic flux tubes will no longer be able to resist the turbulent forces in the convection zone. They will be torn apart in convection zone and what will form on the surface of the sun will be regions of higher magnetic field strength not sunspots. That is in fact what is observed in large regions of the solar northern hemisphere.
Now we do not need to speculate how the sun will change next, that question can be answered by observation. Observations will likely also explain how the solar magnetic cycle restarts, assuming the magnetic cycle moves into a very deep minimum.
n general the behavior of the Sun
All that is in the sun around the sun appears , such as sun spots, eruptions, solar wind , magnetic storm , the reconnection of magnetic poles of the sun , and the like , not all of it together enough to comprehend the underlying causes of such phenomena . None of these phenomena can not provide enough information for it to be predictive of future behavior. These causes are much deeper and must be sought in the constellation of the solar system and the mutual relations of his body. There are logical and true challenger different rotation poles sun and its equatorial belt , and the appearance of sunspots and shifts polarity poles and much anything. So to figure out something , we need to take a completely different way of thinking, but as it is practiced today . I am now working on checking my assumptions . I do it by comparing the data going from Maunder’s minimum, until today. If it came true my guess , many scientific institutions will have their hands full to fill them in programs that will be able to show many changes in almost all times.
Allan MacRae: “Actually, within reasonable accuracy Greg, I suggest that Leif was correct. ”
Yes, he was still very close. It’s just ironic that it’s not his estimatiion that was off but the sloppy data processing.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/triple-running-mean-filters/ssn_filters/
No shortage of auroras:
http://www.universetoday.com/105973/recent-sun-activity-spawns-stunning-aurorae/
William Astley says:
November 5, 2013 at 3:29 am
explain why the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspot is decaying linearly which logically requires the magnetic flux tubes that form the sunspots to decaying linearly
No, that does not follow logically. It is possible, in fact likely, that the flux tubes are formed as usual but that the process on the surface that concentrates the shredded flux tubes [they are ALWAYS shredded] into visible sunspots is operating less efficiently.
explain how the solar magnetic cycle restarts
It has never stopped, so nothing to restart.
***
Michele says:
November 4, 2013 at 12:43 pm
Largest jump in Solar Cycle 24 …..
It is simple …. planets
http://daltonsminima.altervista.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Configurazione-planetaria-23-10-2013.jpg
Venus, Earth approaching Jupiter with transit of Mercury
***
Yes, and Jupiter aligns with Mars. It is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Age of Aquarius…….
This just in: http://www.leif.org/EOS/1311-0844-Polar-Fields-Upton.pdf
“The Sun’s polar magnetic fields are directly related to solar cycle variability. The strength of the polar fields at the start (minimum) of a cycle determine the subsequent amplitude of that cycle”
Leif- Has this paper changed or advanced your thoughts or views in any way? Significance of paper?
Birdieshooter says:
November 5, 2013 at 7:52 am
Leif- Has this paper changed or advanced your thoughts or views in any way? Significance of paper?
The paper is a nice confirmation of the basic proposal of a decade ago [actually all the way back to 1978] using the latest data. Such updates are needed from time to time.
A pox on these scientists who double-peak.. A rat-cage for the ones who double-think!
Leif
‘But I have not had time to read their paper yet. Do you have a link to a copy?”
I think you can register and get a copy for free
Steven Mosher says:
November 5, 2013 at 9:01 am
‘But I have not had time to read their paper yet. Do you have a link to a copy?”
I think you can register and get a copy for free
I’m going to my office at Stanford tomorrow and can get it there. The paper is a clever and subtle rearguard action, as the issue with the Group Sunspot Number is not what happened in 1849, but instead is what happened in 1885.
Steve,
Try this translation from google: http://translate.google.com/#de/en/Forscher%20befürchten%20neue%20Kleine%20Eiszeit
Hey, Gail! Glad to see you back. Hope all is well. J.
Dear Greg,
I’m sorry that I missed your birthday.
To make up for that a bit, here is a little cheer…
from me to you (it’s even on-topic #(;)):
Life can be so sweet, on the sunny side of the street.
And, HAPPY BIRTHDAY — early!
With a smile,
Janice
lsvalgaard says:
November 5, 2013 at 9:16 am
I’m going to my office at Stanford tomorrow and can get it there. The paper is a clever and subtle rearguard action, as the issue with the Group Sunspot Number is not what happened in 1849, but instead is what happened in 1885.
The pre print version is available from:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.8443
If the data holds up this paper will be more than a rear guard action. New digitized Schwabe sunspot drawings provide evidence the GSN record is largely correct and the Wolf values pre 1848 are too high by 20%.
Tnx to all, re xlate.
Samual says:
November 5, 2013 at 2:38 pm
New digitized Schwabe sunspot drawings provide evidence the GSN record is largely correct
That is the clever and subtle part. Where the GSN goes wrong is not in 1848, but in 1885. So saying that GSN is ‘largely correct’ without strongly emphasizing ‘before 1848’ is misleading at best.
Hummm, another X class event just now.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov
OssQss says:
November 5, 2013 at 3:32 pm
Hummm, another X class event just now.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov
Which was predicted as a posibility five hours ago http://www.bbso.njit.edu/cgi-bin/ActivityReport
Hi, OssQss — thanks for telling us — lol, so THAT’s why I can’t make any phone calls… . 😉 — Hope today was a better day. J.
“Which was predicted as a possibility five hours ago…” —
Which was “predicted” by Piers Corbyn ten years ago… “I predict that there will be an X class event sometime in the next 10 years.”
Bwa, ha, ha, ha, haaa!
Samual says:
November 5, 2013 at 2:38 pm
New digitized Schwabe sunspot drawings provide evidence the GSN record is largely correct
At the SSN workshop we construct ‘backbones’ and then link them up. We have a Schwabe backbone and a Wolfer backbone which overlap and are linked up without even using Wolf’s data:
http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard11.pdf
Samual says:
November 5, 2013 at 2:38 pm
New digitized Schwabe sunspot drawings provide evidence the GSN record is largely correct
What we are interested in is the long-term behavior. Here is the ratio between GSN and WSN http://www.leif.org/research/GSN-WSN-Ratio.png
Apart from the very noisy early part the pre-1885 ratios generally fall within the red box, regardless of the possible deviation before 1848 [black box].
Leif, thanks for the link. I wish they had a notification capability there too. Perhaps a business opportunity there?
5 hour sooner notification could be a good thing for many who need it. Reminds me of the tornado warning systems improvements over time.
So, nobody ever responded to the question of X class event frequency at certain points in the solar cycle?
Data anyone?
Next up, “what is the climate impact of several large solar events in a short period of time” WUWT?
Ironically Janice, I was having difficulty with my phones 5g mobile hotspot (not a typo for you geeks out there) in the last several hours. Dunno,,,,,,,
OssQss says:
November 5, 2013 at 5:49 pm
So, nobody ever responded to the question of X class event frequency at certain points in the solar cycle? Data anyone?
They can occur at any phase, perhaps a bit more frequently during the declining part:
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Archives/SolflarSC23.pdf
lsvalgaard says:
November 5, 2013 at 3:46 pm
Samual says:
November 5, 2013 at 2:38 pm
New digitized Schwabe sunspot drawings provide evidence the GSN record is largely correct
At the SSN workshop we construct ‘backbones’ and then link them up. We have a Schwabe backbone and a Wolfer backbone which overlap and are linked up without even using Wolf’s data:
http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard11.pdf
—-
Really glad you said that Dr. S..
After reading the abstract, “Inconsistency of the Wolf sunspot number series around 1848,”
my brain thought, oh know they didn’t have the Schwabe series.
As in, ..”However, the recently digitized series of solar observations in 1825-1867 by Samuel Heinrich Schwabe, who was the primary observer of the WSN before 1848, makes such an assessment possible.”..
meemoe_uk says:
November 4, 2013 at 8:02 pm
..As you’ve pointed out to me a few times recently, plasma filled space is very conductive, so can hold very little voltage drop, so it acts like a conducting wire between an object in space and the other objects in space. e.g. the Earth is effectively connected to the solar corona electrically.
Why should Earth have the same surface voltage as the corona? The electric field of the Earth is a result of an external voltage and Earth’s natural voltage.
Why the Earth likes to be 10^7V to space is interesting to speculate. If the Earth was just an electrically dumb conductor it would just take roughly same voltage as space over a relatively short period of time. That’s it’s high voltage persists means it has its own emf generator, I reckon of subsurface origin ( not the water weather )…
—–
Now that is curious..
But Dr. S., might like the next article..maybe you too..meemoe…
“Measurements of Coronal Faraday Rotation at 4.6 Solar Radii”
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.1727v1.pdf
Jason E. Kooi, Patrick D. Fischer, Jacob J. Buffo, Steven R. Spangler
(Submitted on 5 Jul 2013)
Many competing models for the coronal heating and acceleration mechanisms of the high-speed solar wind depend on the solar magnetic field and plasma structure inside the corona within heliocentric distances of 5 R_sun. We report on sensitive VLA full-polarization observations made in August, 2011, at 5.0 and 6.1 GHz (each with a bandwidth of 128 MHz) of the radio galaxy 3C228 through the solar corona at heliocentric distances of 4.6 – 5.0 R_sun. Observations at 5.0 GHz permit measurements deeper in the corona than previous VLA observations at 1.4 and 1.7 GHz. These Faraday rotation observations provide unique information on the magnetic field in this region of the corona. The measured Faraday rotation on this day was lower than our a priori expectations, but we have successfully modeled the measurement in terms of observed properties of the corona on the day of observation. Our data on 3C228 provide two lines of sight (separated by 46”, 33,000 km in the corona). We detected three periods during which there appeared to be a difference in the Faraday rotation measure between these two closely spaced lines of sight. These measurements (termed differential Faraday rotation) yield an estimate of 2.61 x 10^9 to 4.14 x 10^9 A for coronal currents. Our data also allow us to impose upper limits on rotation measure fluctuations caused by coronal waves; the observed upper limits were 3.3 and 6.4 rad/m^2 along the two lines of sight. The implications of these results for Joule heating and wave heating are briefly discussed.
lsvalgaard says:
November 5, 2013 at 3:46 pm
At the SSN workshop we construct ‘backbones’ and then link them up. We have a Schwabe backbone and a Wolfer backbone which overlap and are linked up without even using Wolf’s data:
http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard11.pdf
What the new paper shows is that the “workshop” has it wrong.
The Schwabe data is compared to the GSN and the overlap of the Schwabe and Wolf data is also compared. The data shows that Wolf’s reconstruction does not follow the Schwabe data and that the Schwabe data corresponds with the GSN record. Wolf’s reconstruction of most of the cycles before 1848 are too high.
The outcomes of the “workshop” is now seen as agenda driven by not looking into the WSN record pre 1848. The claims of the GSN being too low before Wolf are now shown to be wrong, unless the Leussu et al paper is shown to be incorrect, via a rebuttal paper. No other argument will suffice.
Unless this paper is rebutted, the old Lean TSI reconstruction will now be seen as accurate.
Leif,
Do you have plans to be at the 2013 AGU Fall Meeting in San Francisco during the week of December 9?
John
Samual says:
November 5, 2013 at 6:27 pm
What the new paper shows is that the “workshop” has it wrong.
Did you ever even go there and check it out. Wolf’s assessment was for the entire Schwabe record 1826-1867 for which the factor he used was entirely appropriate. The Leussu et al paper only deals with a small part of that, and they find a different factor before 1835. Perhaps you missed that the workshop assessment does not use Wolf’s data for before 1849 at all: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard11.pdf
A rebuttal paper is not necessary as the Leussu et al paper changes nothing. It will, of course, be discussed at our next meeting in Locano next year as several of the authors are participants of the Workshop.
Unless this paper is rebutted, the old Lean TSI reconstruction will now be seen as accurate
Only by people who have an agenda of willing it to be so. Reasonable people will see through the spiel.
John Whitman says:
November 5, 2013 at 6:40 pm
Do you have plans to be at the 2013 AGU Fall Meeting in San Francisco during the week of December 9?
Yes, I’m giving an invited paper SH23D-02 and chairing two sessions SH33E and SH41C.
———
Leif,
That is wonderful.
I will now plan be in the audience for your talk and sessions. I was in the audience for your talk at last year’s Fall AGU meeting.
John
John Whitman says:
November 5, 2013 at 7:15 pm
“Yes, I’m giving an invited paper SH23D-02 and chairing two sessions SH33E and SH41C.”
I will now plan be in the audience for your talk and sessions.
See you there. SH33E is a poster session, so lots of time to talk.
– – – – – – – –
Leif,
I reckon so. See you there.
John
I forecast higher solar activity for this October, and especially for a sharp rise in flares starting from around 21st-23rd October, when there was an acute heliocentric opposition of Mercury and Venus with Ceres. It is very curious how the Sun is so strongly sensitive to such a small body as Ceres.
Ulric Lyons says:
November 6, 2013 at 2:01 am
It is very curious how the Sun is so strongly sensitive to such a small body as Ceres.
In the business that is called the homeopathic principle: the smaller the body, the larger the effect. In fact, the largest effect you get with no body at all.
lsvalgaard says:
“In the business that is called the homeopathic principle: the smaller the body, the larger the effect. In fact, the largest effect you get with no body at all.”
So that’s why there are continuous X-flares when there are no such alignments, brilliant !!
Ulric Lyons says:
November 6, 2013 at 2:01 am
“…It is very curious how the Sun is so strongly sensitive to such a small body as Ceres.”
Strange how charge is always attracted to point objects, e.g. the sharp tip of a lightening conductor.
Janice Moore made some comments about Chicago time.
I looked up my copy of “Hopalong-Freud” by Ira Wallach, 1957 as I thought it was relevant; and indeed I found the following on page 55:
” 7
WORLDS IN COLLUSION
A significant theory, based on a new interpretation of ancient lore, which Immanuel Velikovsky somehow overlooked.
PREFACE
This book, ‘Worlds in Collusion’, is the third in a series of twelve volumes, which I have already completed. Following ‘Worlds in Collusion’, I will publish the seventh book in the series. This will be followed by the third, sixth and fourth in that order. Thus the sequence will be maintained.
THE AUTHOR
Discovery of America
IS IT TRUE THAT CHICAGO WAS ONCE ONLY 52 MILES FROM NEW YORK? Or is this purely myth? Let us see!…”
……. to an eventual conclusion:
“Two of the earth’s poles collided, and the impact was the “kitchen door slam” which collapsed the huge heaped-up terrain which brought Chicago and New York so close together.”
Wouldn’t this topic be more fun if Dr. S. talked to us about the solar hotspots, one in the Northern hemi and one in the Southern hemi and how they evolve over cycle.. Where is that article with the hotspots now up there somewhere..
Carla says:
November 7, 2013 at 7:31 pm
Wouldn’t this topic be more fun if Dr. S. talked to us about the solar hotspots, one in the Northern hemi and one in the Southern hemi and how they evolve over cycle.. Where is that article with the hotspots now up there somewhere..
Yes, but it would not quite be science. On the other hand, there may be some internal organization: http://www.leif.org/research/Hale-Flares.pdf
“We have confirmed, with far better databases, the association of large-scale photospheric magnetism and flare occurrence with the Hale boundaries of the interplanetary sector structure. The patterns we report emphasize the high degree of coherence in the organization of solar magnetic activity on large scales, something that may not be well understood theoretically, but which presumably links the sector structure to the deep interior of the Sun. The solar sector structure is organized and long-lived, and we have found that flaring also has the same degree of spatial and temporal structure.”
See also: http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/~tohban/wiki/index.php/The_Halloween_Flares_and_Large-Scale_Correlations
“Patterns of coherence have also been remarked upon in terms of Svalgaard’s “Hale sector” pattern”
Thank you Dr. S. will look this over on the weekend when I can ..
Seems rotating orbiting bodies have hotspots. Earth has 4? N.Pole, S.Pole, (auroral regions) near SAMA and another in the N. hemisphere where more solar charged particles enter. They also correspond with lower sections of the radiation belts.
Carla says:
November 8, 2013 at 12:48 pm
Seems rotating orbiting bodies have hotspots.
All bodies everywhere are rotating and orbiting. Hotspots are temporary, fleeting, and not fundamental.
lsvalgaard says:
November 8, 2013 at 1:03 pm
Carla says:
November 8, 2013 at 12:48 pm
Seems rotating orbiting bodies have hotspots.
All bodies everywhere are rotating and orbiting.
Hotspots are temporary, fleeting, and not fundamental.
———
Fleeting? Temporary? Not fundamental? eh
Looking like the, Svalgaard’ “Hale sector” pattern and hotspots (formerly active zones) are all part of the same phenomenon .. Like the same hot spots found in patterns of “Accretion,”found in orbiting, rotating bodies. heh
Solar ‘hot spots’ are still hot
T Bai – The Astrophysical Journal, 1990
Distribution of flares on the sun during 1955-1985 ‘Hot spots’ (active zones) lasting for 30 years
T Bai – The Astrophysical Journal, 1988
HOT SPOTS FOR SOLAR FLARES PERSISTING FOR DECADES: LONGITUDE DISTRIBUTIONS
OF FLARES OF CYCLES 19–23
T. Bai
Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
accepted 2002 November 15
abstract
…A new analysis method is introduced for investigating whether major flares are clustered in certain fixed
regions of the Sun in rigidly rotating coordinate systems. This method is applied to the analysis of major
flares of solar cycles 19–23. The northern and southern hemispheres are separately analyzed, and it is found
that longitude distributions of flares in the two hemispheres are different. Therefore, the term ‘‘ hot spot ’’ is
used instead of ‘‘ active longitude.’’…
You might want to have a look at this Dr. S.,
Accretion onto Stars with Octupole Magnetic Fields: Matter Flow, Hot Spots and
Phase Shifts
Min Longa, Marina M. Romanov ab, Frederick K. Lamb c,d
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.5455.pdf
Carla says:
November 9, 2013 at 1:02 pm
Hotspots are temporary, fleeting, and not fundamental.
Yes, that is right. You got it.
The hotspots live for a while [perhaps thousands of years although most of the time a lot less]. Then go away and new ones pop up.
lsvalgaard says:
November 9, 2013 at 1:33 pm
Carla says:
November 9, 2013 at 1:02 pm
Hotspots are temporary, fleeting, and not fundamental.
Yes, that is right. You got it.
The hotspots live for a while [perhaps thousands of years although most of the time a lot less]. Then go away and new ones pop up.
—————–
Far be it from me to invent some new fandangled cycle to the already cyclomania mess. But you did say “perhaps thousands of years..” Soooooo..
Hot spots on the sun, cycle with LISM (density,speed, magn.field, flow direction).
The hotspots look like they are shifting in longitude from cycle 19 to 23.
I wonder if its related to that 4 to 9 degrees shift in interstellar wind that those 11 spacecraft found?
If the interstellar inflow changes or shifts, then the accretion location shifts and the hotspots shift…
Or no, no no.
Eleven Spacecraft Show Interstellar Wind Changed Direction Over 40 Years
Sept 5, 2013
..The data from these diverse sources shows that the direction of the interstellar wind has changed some 4 to 9 degrees over the last 40 years.
“Previously we thought the local interstellar medium was very constant, but these results show that it is highly dynamic, as is the heliosphere’s interaction with it,” said David McComas, IBEX principal investigator at Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas.
While the reason for – and, indeed, the exact timing of – the shift is still unclear, Frisch pointed out that scientists know our solar system is close to the edge of the local interstellar cloud. Such an area of the galaxy might experience turbulence, and as we hurtle through space, the heliosphere could be exposed to different directions of wind. While the scientists don’t yet know for sure how the direction switch happened, the team believes that additional observations should ultimately explain its cause, giving us even more information about the galaxy that surrounds us….
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/interstellar-wind-changed-direction-over-40-years/
Carla says:
November 9, 2013 at 5:18 pm
The hotspots look like they are shifting in longitude from cycle 19 to 23.
I wonder if its related to that 4 to 9 degrees shift in interstellar wind that those 11 spacecraft found?
For the umpteenth time: what happens at the heliopause does travel upstream.
For the umpteenth time: what happens at the heliopause does not travel upstream.