Foto: NASA/SDO
HZDR researchers suggest a link between the solar cycle and the tidal effects of Venus, the Earth and Jupiter
From the Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres via press release:
Are planets setting the Sun’s pace?
The Sun’s activity is determined by the Sun’s magnetic field. Two combined effects are responsible for the latter: The omega effect is caused by the differential rotation of the hot and conductive plasma making up the Sun. This creates a magnetic field in the form of two rings situated north and south of the equator. The alpha effect, in turn, generates a magnetic field which runs along the Sun’s lines of longitude. Exactly where and how the alpha effect originates is currently unknown. Researchers at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR) are putting forward a new theory for this in the journal “Solar Physics”. Their calculations suggest that tidal forces from Venus, the Earth and Jupiter can directly influence the Sun’s activity.
Many questions regarding the Sun’s magnetic field are still unanswered. “As with the Earth, we are dealing with a dynamo. Through self-excitation, a magnetic field is created from virtually nothing, whereby the complex movement of the conductive plasma serves as an energy source,“ says the physicist Dr. Frank Stefani from HZDR. The Sun’s so-called alpha-omega dynamo is subject to a regular cycle. Approximately every eleven years the polarity of the Sun’s magnetic field is reversed, with solar activity peaking with the same frequency. This manifests itself in an increase in sunspots – dark patches on the Sun’s surface which originate from strongly concentrated magnetic fields.
“Interestingly, every 11.07 years, the Sun and the planets Venus, the Earth and Jupiter are aligned. We asked ourselves: Is it a coincidence that the solar cycle corresponds with the cycle of the conjunction or the opposition of the three planets?” ponders Stefani. Although this question is by no means new, up to now scientists could not identify a plausible physical mechanism for how the very weak tidal effects of Venus, the Earth and Jupiter could influence the Sun’s dynamo.
Strengthening through resonance
“If you only just give a swing small pushes, it will swing higher with time,” as Frank Stefani explains the principle of resonance. He and his team discovered in recent calculations that the alpha effect is prone to oscillations under certain conditions. “The impulse for this alpha-oscillation requires almost no energy. The planetary tides could act as sufficient pace setters for this.” The so-called Tayler instability plays a crucial role for the resonance of the Sun’s dynamo. It always arises when a strong enough current flows through a conductive liquid or a plasma. Above a certain strength, the interaction of the current with its own magnetic field generates a flow – in the case of the colossal Sun, a turbulent one.
It is generally understood that the solar dynamo relies on the interaction of two induction mechanisms. Largely undisputed is the omega effect, which originates in the tachocline. This is the name of a narrow band between the Sun’s inner radiative zone and the outer areas in which convection takes place, where heat is transported using the movement of the hot plasma. In the tachocline, various, differentially rotating areas converge. This differential rotation generates the so-called toroidal magnetic field in the form of two “life belts” situated north and south of the solar equator.
A new recipe for the solar dynamo
There is significant lack of clarity regarding the position and cause of the alpha effect, which uses the toroidal field to create a poloidal field – the latter running along the Sun’s lines of longitude. According to a prevalent theory, the alpha effect’s place of origin is near the sunspots, on the Sun’s surface. The Dresden researchers have chosen an alternative approach which links the alpha effect to the right- or left-handedness of the Tayler instability. In turn, the Tayler instability arises due to strongly developed toroidal fields in the tachocline. “That way we can essentially also locate the alpha effect in the tachocline,” says Frank Stefani.
Now the HZDR scientists have discovered the first evidence for the Tayler instability also oscillating back and forth between right- and left-handedness. What is special about this is that the reversal happens with virtually no change to the flow energy. This means that very small forces are enough to initiate an oscillation in the alpha effect. “Our calculations show that planetary tidal forces act here as minute external pace setters. The oscillation in the alpha effect, which is triggered approximately every eleven years, could cause the polarity reversal of the solar magnetic field and, ultimately, dictate the 22-year cycle of the solar dynamo,” according to Stefani.
The scientists surrounding Frank Stefani have been researching magnetic fields in the cosmos and on Earth for many years. They were also the first group in the world to successfully prove both the Tayler instability and the magnetorotational instability in laboratory experiments. In 1999, the specialists in magnetohydrodynamics were also involved in the first demonstration of the homogeneous dynamo effect in Riga.
| The Tayler instability poses a serios danger to novel liquid-metal batteries. |
| Scheme: HZDR |
| Download |
The Tayler instability restricts new liquid-metal batteries
“Interestingly, we stumbled upon the Tayler instability in the context of our research into new liquid-metal batteries, which are currently being investigated as possible inexpensive storage containers for the strongly fluctuating solar energy,” explains Frank Stefani. The fundamental principle of liquid-metal batteries is extremely simple. It consists of two liquid metals of differing densities – the electrodes – which are only separated by a thin layer of salt. The benefits are an extremely quick charging time, an (at least theoretically) infinite number of charging cycles and low costs, if a battery which is one square meter in size can successfully be produced. “For these batteries, the Tayler instability poses a serious danger because it inevitably arises when the cells get bigger and bigger. Without certain technological tricks, which we have already patented, the Tayler instability would destroy the battery’s stratification,” adds Stefani.
Publication: F. Stefani, A. Giesecke, N. Weber, T. Weier: „Synchronized Helicity Oscillations: A Link Between Planetary Tides and the Solar Cycle?”, in Solar Physics, Online Publication on September 1, 2016 (DOI:10.1007/s11207-016-0968-0)
From the paper: “The article will conclude with a summary, and a dismayingly long list of problems that are yet to be solved before the proposed mechanism of planetary synchronization of the solar dynamo might get a chance to become accepted.”
In other words, “Even if what we’re describing seems correct, there’s a ton of work to do before we can call this ‘proven’, so nobody get excited yet.” Beautiful, especially given the persuasiveness of their report.
Also, this gem: Yet, first attempts to link solar variability to planetary motion trace back to times of a milder “climate” of scientific disputation. So satisfying to see that subtlety is not yet a lost art.
I think I’m going to save this paper for further study, for real….
Dumb question no doubt, but here goes anyway:
I thought that for a resonant response, the frequency of the response had to over the longer term be precisely in sync with the cause – else you get syncing for some time then a period when it goes haywire before a resync.
So for the sun to be responding to the alignment of the 3 planets named, then since the alignment frequency is known to a very tight limit, then the sunspot cycle must over time also be be responding in the same way.
Surely this is extremely easy to verify? It either does, or does not, keep in sync over extended numbers of cycles.
That isn’t wrong, but it’s important to remember that laser-precise alignment between these worlds isn’t needed either to produce the effect, necessarily. Also, remember also that sunspot cycles also are not quite regular enough to set one’s clock by, and may in fact be more likely to line up with the VEJ system as a result. Finally, there are other shorter & more powerful cycles going on in the Sun itself which overlap this effect (if real) which may by turns dampen, enhance, alias (that is, offset in time) or otherwise modify this effect.
There’s a lot of data to crunch here, and reading solar physics papers (et al.) is only my hobby, not my jorb. ^_^ Looks plausible at this point though. This IS Dr. S’ jorb though, and I know he’ll have plenty to say once he gets through it. Can’t wait!
Steveta_uk,
Remarkably, if the first minimum of Solar Cycle 25 occurs in 2021 ± 2 years, it will indicate a re-synchronization of the solar minima with a VEJ cycle length of 11.07 +/- 0.05 years over a 410 year period.
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/why-does-solar-cycle-keep-re.html
Since you give yourself a margin of four years, the idea of “synchronisation” is rather loose. Don’t get too excited about having made a falsifiable prediction on that basis.
Greg,
Take minimum 0 to be the one in 1610.8 as the start of cycle -12.
37 minima have occurred after minimum 0 by the time you get to the minimum at the end of cycle 24.
[which we expect to occur sometime around 2020]
Assumptions that:
1. the driving mechanism that synchronises the solar sunspot cycle has a fixed period equal to that of the VEJ Cycle of 11.07 years.
2. the spacing between adjacent minima of the sunspot cycles (i.e. the length of the sunspot
cycle measured from minimum to minimum) drift about this fixed period. However, over time
the length of the sunspot cycle averages out to the fixed period of the driving mechanism.
[This is what I mean by re-synchronisation to the driving mechanism over the long term]
Ask yourself the question – When will minimum at the end of 36 solar cycles (i.e. from solar cycle -12 to solar cycle 24) occur for a given fixed sunspot cycle length?
Fixed Length of Sunspot Cycle____Year of Minimum at end of Cycle 24
(minimum-to-minimum)
(10.00 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 1980.8# untenable values
(10.50 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 1999.3#
(10.90 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 2014.1#
_
_
_
(11.00 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 2017.8
(11.01 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 2018.17
(11.02 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 2018.54
(11.03 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 2018.91
(11.04 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 2019.28
(11.05 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 2019.65
(11.06 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 2020.02
(11.07 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 2020.39
(11.08 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 2020.76
(11.09 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 2021.13
(11.10 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 2021.50
(11.11 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 2021.87
(11.12 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 2022.24
(11.13 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 2022.61
(11.14 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 2022.98
_
_
_
(11.2 x 37) + 1610.8 ____________= 2025.2# untenable values
(11.5 x 37) + 1610.8 ____________= 2035.7#
(12.0 x 37) + 1610.8 ____________= 2054.8#
Greg,
You could have used 1611.5 instead of 1610.8 since:
The first solar minimum in the telescope era was the first minimum for Cycle -12 starting 1610.8.
The corresponding zero acceleration was in ~ 1611.5 (a difference of 0.8 years, which is probably about the size of the errors involved in setting the date of this minimum). So my best estimates for the solar minimum at the end of cycle 24 are sometime between about 2020.4 and 2021.1 since:
(37 x 11.07) + 1610.8 = 2020.39 ~ 2020.4 and
(37 x 11.07) + 1611.5 = 2021.09 ~ 2021.1
Venus, Earth and Jupiter do keep phase with sunspot cycles, with the alternating syzygy types somewhere around the sunspot maxima. But that’s all, it doesn’t indicate where each sunspot maximum actually occurs, and can’t indicate where grand solar minima occur.
Just published by European Space Agency: Magnetic oceans and electric Earth
“When salty ocean water flows through the magnetic field, an electric current is generated and this, in turn, induces a magnetic response in the deep region below Earth’s crust – the mantle.”
http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2012/10/magnetic_field_sources/12062588-3-eng-GB/Magnetic_field_sources_node_full_image_2.jpg
unfortunately the authors have left sun out, but it is essential part of that illustration.
Perhaps Dr. Svalgaard would like to comment on veracity of the claims or otherwise.
ESA article is here:
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/Magnetic_oceans_and_electric_Earth
Of course, it is correct that currents are introduced in the mantle. The EUV [not magnetism or electric currents] from the Sun is responsible by creating the conducting ionosphere as explained here: http://www.leif.org/research/Radio-Ionosphere-Magnetism-and-Sunspots.pdf
The effects are very small, only about 1/1000 of the main geomagnetic field.
As your link says: “ESA’s Swarm satellites have not only measured this extremely faint field…”
The SC24’s polar magnetic field shows an unusual ‘overshoot’ of type not seen before.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF.htm
(here shown as total intensity N+S, i.e. taking polarity sign in account)
vukcevic: Do you still think that SC25 is going to be stronger than SC24
lsvalgaard: SC25 will be a bit stronger than SC24.
What I can see from the above linked polar fields graph I would say that DR.S has made his prediction a bit too early, i.e. SC25 may be weaker than SC24.
I don’t think it is an overshoot.
you have to re-calculate your formula
I predict that from 2014 the magnetic field strength will look like the mirror image [of your graph before 2014]
{I am not good at geometry – I hope you will figure out the new equation}
Henry
Sun is not run by a clockwork, it is an oscillator loosely synchronised by a weak electro-magnetic feedback from the gas giants. Feedback wax and wanes for number of reasons often as the heliosphere comes under pressure externally i.e. galactic magnetic field (read Carla’s comments).
Equation shows an idealised situation all being equal, with specific orbital numbers (you should be able to recognise) therefore it is not meant to be changed for any minor deviation from the idealised case it is meant to represent.
It does not matter how ‘loosely’ it is
from the results I have so far it does not look like there is a grand minimum coming up
i.o.w
business as usual\
SC 25 is going to be more or less equal SC 17
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/sidc-ssn/from:1972/to:2016/offset:10/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:2016/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:1972/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:2016/trend
[note that we had a double solar cycle around 1971 which probably explains most of my off set amount]
:::you have to adapt or change your graph.
Unless Ulric can calculate [from the planets’ position] that there is a grand min. coming? [ I only studied the Saturn-Uranus connection]
The SC24’s polar magnetic field shows an unusual ‘overshoot’ of type not seen before.
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about. What is happening is that theSouth pole is now tipped away from the Earth and so we cannot see the sharply peaked magnetic field at the pole. This happens every year in September. If correct for this projection effect [see Figure 1 of http://jsoc.stanford.edu/data/hmi/polarfield/ ] you can see that there is no decrease or overshoot effect.
It is precisely this apparent ‘overshoot’ [when it happens at both poles] that is the sign that the polar fields are stable and can be used for prediction of the next cycle. We are not there yet, as the North polar fields are not showing the ‘tipping’ effect yet [happens every year in March]. The North polar fields are sill increasing, so everything points to a SC25 somewhat stronger than SC24.
we will see
“A 27.2-day temporal running average is then performed. ”
Amazing how attached some otherwise knowledgeable scientists are to the 19th century’s favourite “filter”, despite the horrible distortions it induces and the face it leaves much of higher frequencies it is intended to remove.
When all this had be done with pencil and paper, there was a good excuse for using running averages since properly filters require a lot more calculation. Now we have computers.
it leaves much of higher frequencies it is intended to remove.
Greg, this is not a noise removal thing. We only see half of the Sun. To get an average of the signal over a full solar rotation we average over 27 days [one rotation]. We are not interested in ‘removing’ anything, but rather in ‘adding’ things up. We want to get the average flux density over the whole rotation. If I measure the temperature every day for a month, it would make sense to compute the monthly average, just as we do for the polar magnetic flux.
lsvalgaard October 5, 2016 at 2:56 pm
The SC24’s polar magnetic field shows an unusual ‘overshoot’ of type not seen before.
—————————————————-
Dr. S., the overshoot is the magnetic field strength depicted in Vuk’s graph. It exceeds what Vuks has calculated as expressed by the red line. So, the magnetic field is stronger than what Vuks figured it should be. Link below with original comment. Well that’s what I think he means?
…”””vukcevic October 5, 2016 at 12:35 pm
The SC24’s polar magnetic field shows an unusual ‘overshoot’ of type not seen before.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF.htm …”””
_________________________________
Now what I would like to ask you is, what the devil are you talking about?
…”””What is happening is that theSouth pole is now tipped away from the Earth and so we cannot see the sharply peaked magnetic field at the pole. This happens every year in September. If correct for this projection effect [see Figure 1 of http://jsoc.stanford.edu/data/hmi/polarfield/ ] you can see that there is no decrease or overshoot effect.
It is precisely this apparent ‘overshoot’ [when it happens at both poles] that is the sign that the polar fields are stable and can be used for prediction of the next cycle. We are not there yet, as the North polar fields are not showing the ‘tipping’ effect yet [happens every year in March]. The North polar fields are sill increasing, so everything points to a SC25 somewhat stronger than SC24.”””…
From your link I don’t see the Northern Polar field increasing…
Tipping effect?
That you don’t want to see something, does not mean it is not happening. To summarize: seen from the Earth, the sun’s axis is tipping back and forth during the year. That induces an apparent [i.e. not real] variation of the observed polar fields, which is the ‘overshoot’. We can correct for this, and when we do, we see the real variation of the polar fields as shown here http://jsoc.stanford.edu/data/hmi/polarfield/
It should be clear that the southern field has stabilized and that the northern field is still rising.
That this does not match Vuk’s curves just means that they are wrong.
In this comment lsvalgaard October 5, 2016 at 2:45 pm
Dr. S suggests that flux tubes don’t contain electric current until reconnection takes place.
“The magnetic field in the flux tube reconnects with the Earth’s magnetic field and generate the current locally at the Earth. No Earth, no current.”
He obviously is wrong, and I wonder how is he going to dig his way out.
Here are some quotes from prominent solar scientists:
R.P. LEPPING et al, from Laboratory for Solar and Space Physics NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center
A summary of WIND magnetic clouds for years 1995-2003 : model-fitted parameters, associated errors and classifications
“MCs (magnetic clouds/flux tubes) are 1/4AU in diameter, have a broad distribution of axial directions with a slight preference for alignment with the Y-axis(GSE), have axial fluxes of 10^21Mx, have axial current densities of about 2μA/km2, and carry a total axial current of about a billion amps.
Hironori Shimazua,b,c, MotohikoTanaka: A flux rope requires a large electric current to maintain its magnetic field…..the flux rope is maintained only by the electron current. This assumption is reasonable because the proton current alone cannot make a structure smaller than the proton cyclotron radius. Protons are assumed to have no bulk drift except for thermal motion…..In the initial equilibrium, the electrons move along the magnetic field lines, and this electric current generates the magnetic field of the flux rope.
This is the usual chicken and egg deal. What creates what? The heliospheric current sheet also ‘carries’ an enormous current, required to reverse the magnetic field across the sheet. The crucial point is that the magnetic field maintains the current by causing charges [in casu: electrons] to gyrate. An electric current as we usually think about it flows along an electric field from one collection of charges to a collection of the opposite charge, in the process shorting the current, unless there is a constant renewal of the charge separation, e.g. by a dynamo process.
The whole subject is treated extremely well by Gene Parker’s book ‘Conversations’, of which Chapter one is here: http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s8454.pdf
“It is here that a fundamental misunderstanding has become widely accepted, mistaking the electric current j and the electric field E (the E, j paradigm) (Parker 1996a) to be the fundamental physical entities. Steady conditions often can be treated using the E, j paradigm, but the dynamics of time-dependent systems becomes difficult, if not impossible, because of the inability to express Newton’s equation in terms of E and j in a tractable form. That is to say, E and j are proxies for B and v, but too remote from B and v to handle the momentum equation. So it is not possible to construct a workable set of dynamical field equations in terms of j and E from the equations of Newton and Maxwell. The generalized Ohm’s law is often employed, but Ohm’s law does not control the large-scale dynamics. The tail does not wag the dog. This inadequacy has led to fantasy to complement the limited equations available in the E, j paradigm, attributing the leading dynamical role to an electric field E with unphysical properties. Magnetospheric physics has suffered severely from this misdirection, and we will come back to the specific aspects of the misunderstanding at appropriate places in these conversations. The essential point is that we live in a magnetohydrodynamic universe in which the magnetic field B is responsible for the remarkable behavior of the gas velocity v, and vice versa.”
That was a valiant effort to dig yourself out.
It is sad that the generations of astrophysics students were educated by following Parker’s flawed view of the electricity-magnetism relationship.
I would rather go with Parker than with the self-delusional Vuk
“self-delusional Vuk” has two degrees in electronic engineering, and spent all of his working life practising the same.
Astrophysics students should spent the first month of their studies doing project on atmospheric electrical discharge / lightning / and its effects on the nearby electric supply lines, it should clear their mind about ‘electric vs magnetic’ chicken and egg problem.
Proves my point.
“Parker is arguably the world’s leading authority on solar wind and the effects of magnetic fields in the heliosphere, and his originality of thought and distinctive approach to physics are very much in evidence here. Seeking to enrich discussions in standard texts and correct misconceptions about the dynamics of these large-scale fields, Parker engages readers in a series of “conversations” that are at times anecdotal and even entertaining without ever sacrificing theoretical rigor. The dynamics he describes represents the Maxwell stresses of the magnetic field working against the pressure and inertia of the bulk motion of ionized gases, characterized in terms of the magnetic field and gas velocity. Parker shows how this dynamic interaction cannot be fully expressed in terms of the electric current and electric field.”
“Nobody has contributed more, or more deeply, to our understanding of the physics of astrophysical magnetofluids than Eugene Parker. Conversations on Electric and Magnetic Fields in the Cosmos provides those of us who have had the privilege of learning directly from him a chance to revisit the elegant insight, structure, and breezy wit that Parker brings to the subject. For those who have not had that privilege, this book provides lasting opportunity to visit with a master.”–Eugene H. Levy, Rice University
“This small book, which describes the basic physics that governs the electrodynamics of the cosmos, is graced by insights the author gleaned during a lifelong fascination with the subject matter. We owe to him the explanation of many natural phenomena including how the solar wind blows and why its magnetic field lines form Archimedian spirals. Another of his creations, the α-Ω dynamo model affords us our understanding of how the magnetic fields of planets are maintained against resistive decay and why the Sun’s magnetic field reverses every eleven years.”–Peter Goldreich, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton
“This is a book by one of the leaders in the field of plasma astrophysics. Parker sets the record straight on many misunderstandings concerning electric and magnetic fields in the cosmos. The book also presents a revealing picture of the author’s thinking and displays how he was able to arrive at such original solutions to so many important astrophysical problems.”–Russell M. Kulsrud, author of Plasma Physics for Astrophysics”
” The essential feature for the production and existence of magnetic field is the high electrical conductivity, i.e., the inability to support an electric field in the moving frame of reference of plasma or liquid planetary interior. This is all so foreign to the situation in the lower terrestrial atmosphere where we reside, the air being an excellent electrical insulator. Here we see none of the magnetic effects, the atmospheric winds blowing freely through the geomagnetic field. Instead, we see such powerful electrostatic phenomena as lightning, driven by potential differences of millions of volts. The tropical thunderstorms charge Earth to some 3–4 x10^5 V negative with respect to the ionosphere and the space beyond. So there is a downward directed electric field of the order of 1 V/cm [BTW a voltage of just 1 V accelerates an electron to 600 km/sec] here in the lower atmosphere, diminishing upward to the ionosphere at about 100 km altitude. The high density and low temperature of the atmosphere create this unique situation. Indeed, it would appear that the formation of life is possible only in such a situation of low temperature and, hence, negligible electrical conductivity. So, living things can discover the general magnetic character of the cosmos only by remote observation. Only in the physics laboratory can the magnetic plasma conditions be duplicated to some degree.”
This is why your education and experience count for nothing in space physics.
Conversations on Electric and Magnetic Fields in the Cosmos.
Ah, Parker talking to himself (no joke intended), at least he had sense to put them in right order in the title of his book.
Did following Parker made you say that there is no electric current in the magnetic flux tube?
while RP Lepping, the NASA’s NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center expert, says not only there is current there but he claims total axial current of about a billion amps.
As usual I’ll let you have the last word on this one.
You have [in spite of my many attempts to explain it] not understood anything. [it doesn’t look like you have even read ‘Conversations’]. The flux tube is twisted [originating at its source]. A twisted magnetic field generates a local electric current, just like the opposite magnetic fields in the Heliospheric Current Sheet does. In the ret frame of the plasma there is no large-scale electric field. The critical point is that the magnetic field is the primary and the current a secondary consequence. The current is not like the current flowing in the power line from the generating plant to your house, but is a drift current caused by electrons gyrating in place around a magnetic field line, just like a water molecule in an ocean wave just moves in a circular path without moving laterally across the ocean.
And as usual, you are just running away when your lack of understanding is exposed.
Hironori Shimazua,b,c, MotohikoTanaka: “A flux rope requires a large electric current to maintain its magnetic field…..the flux rope is maintained only by the electron current …….this electric current generates the magnetic field of the flux rope”.
perhaps you should read some of the up to date papers written as result of satellite observations and consider why they are right or wrong rather than clinging to the mid last century outdated Parker’s musings on the magic magnetics.
I’ll give way to other who might wont to contribute on anything solar.
It was pleasure, see you soon some other time some other place.
What happened to ‘last word’? Anyway, your quote illustrates the misconception Parker warns about.
A large electric current requires a large electromotive force. What maintains the current?
Hironori Shimazua,b,c, MotohikoTanaka: “A flux rope requires a large electric current to maintain its magnetic field…..the flux rope is maintained only by the electron current …….this electric current generates the magnetic field of the flux rope”.
perhaps you should read some of the up to date papers written as result of satellite observations
As usual, you do selective quoting of irrelevant papers. The Shimazu & Tanaka paper is about a simulation [not up-to-date observations] of small flux tubes generated by the interaction between Venus and the Solar wind. In your quote “A flux rope requires…” you left out ‘small’. A correct quote should have been “A small flux rope…” showing a basic dishonesty.
Their simulated flux tube was set up to be generated by an initial electric current, hence no wonder that it is maintained by the current.
The timing of each sunspot maximum can be plotted very closely by when the inferior conjunctions of Earth and Venus are in closer syzygy with Uranus, and in even numbered cycles with Jupiter roughly in syzygy with Uranus, and in odd numbered cycles with Jupiter roughly in quadrature with Uranus. When the Ju-Ea-Ve triplet slips enough out of sync with Uranus is when a solar minimum occurs, the triplet then do a similar progression with Neptune instead of Uranus for remainder of the solar minimum until they can physically gain the original sync with Uranus again. Which is why there are a couple of very short solar cycles in Maunder, because the Ju-Ea-Ve triplet return faster to Neptune than to Uranus. Thereby one can plot every solar minimum start date and duration, and the timing of most sunspot maxima to within a year. Anyone with TheSky or Alcyone astronomy software can easily confirm this, ideally at 291.961 day steps fixed to the Earth-Venus syzygies.
Thx. This is great and confirms my own finding. The going out of sync causing extra cooling is what I would expect when the relationship – i.e position of planets versus solar activity – is cause to the solar activity – i.e. not originally caused by the sun. I am sure
that would be quite upsetting to some people…..
Solar science suffers in the same way climate science does, they both assume the natural variability is internal. Let them be upset.
So based on this your prediction for Solar Cycle 25 is? Larger than 24 like Dr. Svalgaard, the same, or smaller?
A smaller cycle as it’s still solar minimum, but I would leave the finer details to Leif until I could legitimately give such detail.
For example I can see an immediate reason for an every fourth cycle pattern, because because of the alternating Jupiter-Uranus syzygies. That would predict weaker cycles at 1969 and 1927, but it doesn’t work every time historically so I would have to find out why.
@ulric
I am reluctant on relying too much on SSN before 1900 due to various factors, e.g.
how big a is a spot? What to do when you have overcast conditions for months?
etc.
However, history do point to prolonged periods of cooling and warming which would hint at “missing a switch” every so other time when things go a bit out of sync.
as to myself and a few others
we have studied the Uranus – Saturn alignment
http://oi64.tinypic.com/5yxjyu.jpg
I agree that the other planets also have an influence – i.e. correlation to solar activity –
as suggested here in this post
but I can see from the actual solar polar field strengths that we did make the switch in 2014,
so theoretically – following the correlation – SC 25 will be more or less equal to SC 17
What would make you think we will have an extended minimum, i.e SC 25 even weaker than SC 24/?
I am reluctant on relying too much on SSN before 1900 due to various factors, e.g.
how big a is a spot?
Today [and after 1900] we use telescopes of the same type [in some cases even the very same ones] as before 1900, so the SSN record is good at least back to the 1820s.
What to do when you have overcast conditions for months?
First of all, you never have that, second: there are observers all over the world and they don’t all have overcast at the same time.
You have been told this many times. Are you hard of learning? Or do you discount the record because it doesn’t fit with your ideas. BTW, Gleissberg based his cycle mostly on the SSN record that you discount.So Gleissberg was on shaky ground according to you?
It is a given that a [good] scientist may reject a series of data, from before ‘his’ time, if he cannot double check such data on the hand of his own collected data.\
Anyway, indeed, we did discuss your ancient data many times and my main problem with them, besides a host of historical issues, is that I still don’t know how big a solar spot is and how to count when smaller spots merge to a bigger spot. ????
Better if we stick with the solar polar magnetic field strengths (SPMFS)?
You showed me last time that maxima occur in line with the [lowest] magnetic field strengths [in an SC] showing correlation going down 1969 to present. When overlaid, you showed linear lines going down.
I think that was wrong. It was clear that both SSN and the absolute solar magnetic field strengths were going down following a quadratic equation. As predicted by myself they would have to come to some dead end stop in 2014, which was the end of the sine wave starting in 1927.
Gleissberg and a few others were out on the length of the GB sinewave cycle. They thought it was 88 years instead of the 86.5 years as determined by myself and a few others.
It does not seem like a big difference but it does place the time of lowest SPMFS at 2014.
The actual dead end stop – which was confirmed by my results for maxima on 54 terrestrial stations- would indicate some sort of electrical switch on the sun which occurs every 43 years.
Your theories as explanation for that switch would be much appreciated.
s that I still don’t know how big a solar spot is and how to count when smaller spots merge to a bigger spot.
I doesn’t matter that you don’t know. It matters that the people actually counting the spots know. And it is not hard. Even you could do it [if you try]. Here is today’s drawing from Kamzelhoehe: http://cesar.kso.ac.at/main/cesar_start.php?date=2016-10-09
Try to count the spots.
Your theories as explanation for that switch would be much appreciated.
What switch? There isn’t any.
I am clueless as to your spot counting.
Is there anyone here besides dr.No who actually understands it?
I’ll accept that you are clueless when it comes to the sunspot record. My little grandson looked at the drawing I referred you to and counted the spots with ease…
eehhh
family
it does not count
really
What nonsense is that? The example just shows that a 7-yr old can do what you are clueless about.
But as I said, I’ll accept you being clueless in this [and many other matters].
leif says
What switch? There isn’t any.
henry says
the switch that leaves holes in your SPMFS graph
i.e. ending 1971 and 2014
looking like mini solar cycles?
What ‘holes’? There are no holes in the graph:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-Since-1966.png
Ja
lets ignore the presence of the holes…
How dumb.
HenryP, from what I can gather there, your 1919 superior conjunction caused supposed cooling from 8 years later, and your 1965 superior conjunction caused supposed warming from 6 years later. That’s not a good start, and it would make sense if you could show what they were doing at the time and not several years later.
obviously there an apparent [more or less constant] delay on the push/pull [electrical] switch
hence the correlation
either it is the position of the planets or it was so from the beginning of time
you tell me?
Obviously you can just invent a push/pull switch and a delay, but that is definitely an anti-correlation that you have presented between the 1919 and 1965 events.
@ulric
I repeat my question
What would make you think we will have an extended minimum, i.e SC 25 even weaker than SC 24/?
It doesn’t make any difference as to whether SC25 is slightly weaker or slightly stronger than SC24, as two weak cycles is not an extended minimum.
What is ext min?
When last did it occur?