Plasma flow near sun’s surface explains sunspots, other solar phenomena

University of Washington

Sunspots can be seen on this image of solar radiation. Each sunspot lasts a few days to a few months, and the total number peaks every 11 years. The darker spots accompany bright white blotches, called faculae, which increase overall solar radiation. Credit NASA/Goddard/SORCE

Sunspots can be seen on this image of solar radiation. Each sunspot lasts a few days to a few months, and the total number peaks every 11 years. The darker spots accompany bright white blotches, called faculae, which increase overall solar radiation. Credit NASA/Goddard/SORCE

For 400 years people have tracked sunspots, the dark patches that appear for weeks at a time on the sun’s surface. They have observed but been unable to explain why the number of spots peaks every 11 years.

A University of Washington study published this month in the journal Physics of Plasmas proposes a model of plasma motion that would explain the 11-year sunspot cycle and several other previously mysterious properties of the sun.

“Our model is completely different from a normal picture of the sun,” said first author Thomas Jarboe, a UW professor of aeronautics and astronautics. “I really think we’re the first people that are telling you the nature and source of solar magnetic phenomena — how the sun works.”

The authors created a model based on their previous work with fusion energy research. The model shows that a thin layer beneath the sun’s surface is key to many of the features we see from Earth, like sunspots, magnetic reversals and solar flow, and is backed up by comparisons with observations of the sun.

“The observational data are key to confirming our picture of how the sun functions,” Jarboe said.

In the new model, a thin layer of magnetic flux and plasma, or free-floating electrons, moves at different speeds on different parts of the sun. The difference in speed between the flows creates twists of magnetism, known as magnetic helicity, that are similar to what happens in some fusion reactor concepts.

“Every 11 years, the sun grows this layer until it’s too big to be stable, and then it sloughs off,” Jarboe said. Its departure exposes the lower layer of plasma moving in the opposite direction with a flipped magnetic field.

When the circuits in both hemispheres are moving at the same speed, more sunspots appear. When the circuits are different speeds, there is less sunspot activity. That mismatch, Jarboe says, may have happened during the decades of little sunspot activity known as the “Maunder Minimum.”

“If the two hemispheres rotate at different speeds, then the sunspots near the equator won’t match up, and the whole thing will die,” Jarboe said.

“Scientists had thought that a sunspot was generated down at 30 percent of the depth of the sun, and then came up in a twisted rope of plasma that pops out,” Jarboe said. Instead, his model shows that the sunspots are in the “supergranules” that form within the thin, subsurface layer of plasma that the study calculates to be roughly 100 to 300 miles (150 to 450 kilometers) thick, or a fraction of the sun’s 430,000-mile radius.

“The sunspot is an amazing thing. There’s nothing there, and then all of a sudden, you see it in a flash,” Jarboe said.

The group’s previous research has focused on fusion power reactors, which use very high temperatures similar to those inside the sun to separate hydrogen nuclei from their electrons. In both the sun and in fusion reactors the nuclei of two hydrogen atoms fuse together, releasing huge amounts of energy.

The type of reactor Jarboe has focused on, a spheromak, contains the electron plasma within a sphere that causes it to self-organize into certain patterns. When Jarboe began to consider the sun, he saw similarities, and created a model for what might be happening in the celestial body.

“For 100 years people have been researching this,” Jarboe said. “Many of the features we’re seeing are below the resolution of the models, so we can only find them in calculations.”

Other properties explained by the theory, he said, include flow inside the sun, the twisting action that leads to sunspots and the total magnetic structure of the sun. The paper is likely to provoke intense discussion, Jarboe said.

“My hope is that scientists will look at their data in a new light, and the researchers who worked their whole lives to gather that data will have a new tool to understand what it all means,” he said.

###

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy. Co-authors are UW graduate students Thomas Benedett, Christopher Everson, Christopher Hansen, Derek Sutherland, James Penna, UW postdoctoral researchers Aaron Hossack and John Benjamin O’Bryan, UW affiliate faculty member Brian Nelson, and Kyle Morgan, a former UW graduate student now at CTFusion in Seattle.

From EurekAlert!

Advertisements

96 thoughts on “Plasma flow near sun’s surface explains sunspots, other solar phenomena

  1. An interesting hypothesis, although I’m not qualified to meaningfully evaluate it. The settled sciences are soooo unsettling….

    • Solar observation is not my specialty. How might one devise a means of measuring this sub-chromosphere plasma field? Does it emit measurable radiation of B-field?

      Computer models are nice if they can predict activity. However, a clock is a useful model for predicting activity of a geyser, yet it does not explain adequately the mechanism on how the geyser works.

  2. “Many of the features we’re seeing are below the resolution of the models, so we can only find them in calculations.”
    Perhaps GCM builders may heed this understanding of the limits of modelling.

  3. First prospective explanation of the 11 year cycle! Exciting even if subject to detailed analysis and observations!

    • John Francis
      September 21, 2019 at 11:38 pm

      Don’t forget that it’s actually a 22 year cycle as the magnetic pole reverses every 11 years.

      • Wait until Lief pops up and explains that it is a 16 cycle ( with a period of 22y 😉 ).

        It does not seem that they offer any explanation for the presence of a cyclic behaviour beyond the word ‘sloughing’.

        Neither does it seem to offer any reason why the photosphere is brighter than the interior ( the dark spots being a view deeper into the sun. ) Neither does it say why the chromosphere is way hotter than the 6,500 degrees of the photosphere. It’s certainly interesting to have some new ideas from areas outside the intellectually incestuous world of academia.

        These simply facts are difficult to reconcile with the basic concept that all energy is originating within the core of the sun.

        • The fact that I find most difficult to reconcile is that the sun is a (very) large fusion reaction held together by nothing but the gravity of its constituents. Given that it is, however, it is quite easy for me to accept that there could be a great number of swirls, bubbles, flows, eddies, and far more exotic motions within it. I can easily accept the ones postulated here – especially since formulated by “observational data”.

  4. All way over my head, but how does it compare with Zharkova’s ‘double dynamo’ hypothesis? It looks to have quite a lot in common. What does it say about global warming? Zharkova is predicting an event similar to a Maunder Minimum in the next few decades.

  5. Garbage. Utter nonsense.
    The buoyant instability in hyper-dense, hyper tensioned “thin” magnetic flux tubes begins near the tachocline at around 0.7r (r=radius of sun at 695 megameter). The paired instabilities in a continuous flux tube grow as they ascend thru the convective zone under buoyancy with an overall average speed of ~140 -150 meters/sec. As the toroidal twisted flux rope approaches the surface, if sufficient instability exists, the two proximal regions of the flux tube wrap around each other to appear as a beta-gamma-delta sunspot (as mixed polarity, with magnetic reconnections causing flaring and CMEs).

    The MHD simulations agree with helio-seismology observations and that “picture” of magnetic flux ropes ascending thru a turbulent CZ towards the surface.
    The alpha-omega dynamo is what is the best explanation for what drives the sunspots appearing on the surface.
    The differential rotation of both the radiative zone (RZ) to the convective zone (CZ) and differential rotation within latitudinal gradients of the CZ is of course are the key drivers in turning a pre-existing toroidal field into a poloidal field. Both the alpha-effect and differential rotation shear contribute field production.

    The mean turbulent EMF is parallel to the mean magnetic field in the CZ. This is called the alpha-effect. See slide 16 of this presentation to understand how the alpha -effect converts poloidal field into a torodial field.

    https://cpaess.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/heliophysics/resources/presentations/2009_Charbonneau.pdf
    (Slides 43-45 are key)

    Note slide #63, as a H/T to a young Dr Svalgaard, circa 1978. (LOL)
    And slide #69 is the “basics.”
    Differential rotation is the key to understanding dynamos and organized large magnetic fields. Not super-granules that are turbulent-chaotic near the surface.

    As such, I give this “supergranule origin” study noted here little credibility to its claims.

    Of course the key question remains… what gives rise then to buoyant instabilities in a hyperdense, hyper tense thin flux tube 200 megameters below the Sun’s surface?
    MHD simulations of a rising flux tube twisting merely artificially induce the buoyancy differential in two adjacent segments to produce a bgd (bgd = beta-gamma-delta, a mixed polarity AR) sunspot at the surface. But what is the real cause of the original instability if that is the case?
    I have a hypothesis, that is still a work in progress. It will light the astrophysics field on fire if evidence is found to support it.

    • Toroidal to poloidal field under differential rotation… I messed (reversed) that up in the 2nd instance above. The alpha effect.
      And I might add the existing dynamo-sunspot- fluxtube paradigm explains Joy’s Rule (latitudinal dependent tilting of opposite polarity leader-trailer spots explained), which the supergranule hypothesis does not from what I can tell.

      No matter how elegant the hypothesis, no matter how smart you are, if it doesn’t agree with observation, it’s wrong.
      – Richard Feynman

      • Read the linked pdf. Even if you can’t get through the vector math, read the text slides and study the figures.
        That is still probably the best heliophysics of what we know today. And look at slides 66 and 67. 67 (Choudhuri et al. forecasting scheme) nailed it correctly for SC24, while slide 66 (Dikpati et al. forecasting scheme) we now know got it wrong. Predictive power (skill) is the only way forward to separate what we should accept and what we should reject in science.

  6. ” lets see..
    that thin layer.. 100- 300 miles..

    gosh its a trace layer

    300/430,000

    I love the skeptical arguement about c02 being a trace gas.

    trace gas, tiny percent.. cant do anything!

    300/430000… wow how could a layer so small precentgae wise….

    sarc off.

    See what Leif says.

      • Not comparing that.

        comparing a farm of argument. x has a low percentage therefore, X can’t have an effect.

        • A troll on WUWT once quoted the level of CO2 in the atmosphere and asked “how would you like having the same level of cyanide in your body?” (Can’t remember who it was, bet you can.) Totally different. CO2 isn’t poison. Cyanide is. From now on I’m dropping “apples and oranges” and using the phrase “Comparing CO2 and cyanide”. In your honor mosh.

        • Actually … the thin layer of Plasma is 100% plasma, it’s just a small percentage of the sun. No comparison to CO2 which is a small percentage of a thin layer.

          What you are saying is we should calculate CO2 as a percentage of the entire earth. Wonder how many zeros that would entail? … 0.000000000000 etc

    • Steven Mosher September 21, 2019 at 11:48 pm
      I know lets place a trace layer of CO2 on one of your arms and and trace layer of plasma on the other. One is a trace gas the other something vastly different. I Love it
      when warmists try to use any idiotic comparisons to defend their flawed assumptions.

      michael 🙂

      • The plasma layer might be warmer. However, given the guff about CO2 I wouldn’t be sure of that.

        On an unrelated note, how do these do this?

        • On an unrelated note, how do these do this?

          They do it because the CO2 is already burnt, …… and ya cant re-burn it.

          • There is “burn” and then there is “burn” ……. and fire, rusting, etc., is the “oxidizing” type of burn or burning.

            If CTF means carbon tetrafluoride, then no O2, ……. just CF4

        • To properly add to what Sam said above.
          They work by displacing (blowing away) enough of the combustible (oxygen rich) air air with CO2 which as Sam says “has already been combusted” leaving no available oxygen supply to continue combining with the hydrocarbon fumes and create ‘fire’.
          Fire needs 3 things: fuel; oxygen; ignition (ignition needs only be present at the start)
          Take away any leg of the stool and it will collapse.

          • Actually, the CO2 does not come out “cold”, ….. it comes out liquid and quickly changes to a gas by absorbing the heat in the air, etc., thus quickly decreasing the temp.

    • a thin layer having an effect on … the same thin layer, not the entire volume of the sun.

      CO2 ( not c02 ) is a well mixed gas in the bulk of the atmosphere and its optical effect is near saturation. That means it can’t have much effect. Who said it can’t do anything?

      Making a stupid false analogy, even hidden behind a thick layer of sarcasm does not make any valid criticism.

    • The atmosphere of Venus is over 95% CO2 at a pressure of 100 bar. That means a whopping 250000 times the amount of CO2 per cm2 compared to Earth. The greenhouse warming on Venus is about 400K.

      • The warming on Venus would be nearly the same with 400 ppm CO2, as long as the total pressure is the same. The effect is a combination of lapse rate and absorption, not just mainly CO2.

      • MarkW
        +1
        One would think that an English major would be good at such things. Then, life is full of surprises.

    • This trace layer covers the whole sun, yes? Like a fluid shell or coating perhaps? CO2 isn’t a shell but a small part of the covering layer(s) of atmosphere around the earth. Seems to be functionally quite different and so the comparison falls apart with any level of inspection – at least to this humble GMP (general member of the public).

      What I find interesting is the plasma/magnetic flow, since this could be in line with electric universe.

    • Ive tried to advise sceptics to drop this foolish and lazy thinking (and unnecessary wasting of breath on the idea that CO2 being a ‘mere’ 0.04% of the atmosphere makes it too puny a player) by noting that it supports the entire massive carbon-based biosphere – a heavy lifter indeed.

      Moshe, you have exploited this silly notion exactly as I had explained crisis warming proponents would do. Crisis AGW theory provides ample soft targets for sceptics to strike at. CO2 abundance isnt one of them.

      • But that’s a non sequitur. How many fish do I need in a lake to make it worth my while to go fishing? Yet, the mass of those fish in the lake would likely be a rounding error vs. the total mass of the lake.

        CO2 is a trace gas in the thin atmosphere of a water planet with massive oceans. Thinking that trace gas is the dominant control knob for the planet’s temperature is just goofy.

    • Well it is abundantly clear that pure thin layer on the sun doesn’t change the solar TSI by much either.

  7. It has nothing whatsoever to do with global warming though…

    Nowt, nil, zip……

    You’re a Nazi if you even imply otherwise.

  8. The article states : “…..In the new model, a thin layer of magnetic flux and plasma, or free-floating electrons, moves at different speeds on different parts of the sun.”
    Magnetic flux + plasma + electrons. That almost sounds like some EU believer wrote it !

  9. “I really think we’re the first people that are telling you the nature and source of solar magnetic phenomena — how the sun works.”

    Really? What about the Suspicious Observer dude , I believe he’s been saying this for years.

  10. “Instead, his model shows that….” Not comfortable with this wording. Surely “Instead, his model proposes…..” is more appropriate.

    Also, where’s Leif?

    • I was going to make this same point about discussing whether a model can “show” something. A model is a structured hypothesis. When a model is run in a computer, it does not create experimental data in the sense of real world measurement. It does not “show” us something about the real world….until the model is confirmed. Running a model creates quantification of the hypothesis…..which can then be compared with real world data to see if the model has truth value. Then one might say that something has been “shown”.

      I am a big fan of Orwell, especially his point that quality of words controls quality of thought, especially in the political arena, where sadly most of “climate science” lies. Trying to be precise in language will help keep thinking precise.

      By this critique, I do not mean to call the points made or the quality of this model and its use into question. This sounds like great work that someday may show us something very important.

  11. The word Model was almost enough to put me off, but its interesting.

    One thing, the 11 or is it 22 year cycle. Many years ago I read a book which
    linked the 11 year cycle with the time that almost all the planets lined up, and
    thus caused a strong gravitational pull on the surface of the Sun. “The Jupiter
    Effect””

    So do the Planets so line up ?

    MJE VK5ELL

    • gravity is inv. sqr, tidal forces are inv. cube. you need to rank planets with mass and inv cube. Jupiter dominates. Forget outer planets., Earth and Venus become major players despite relatively small mass.

      • Agreed. That’s why there is a earth-venus beat frequency visible in the butterfly patterns of sunspot evolution. I saw that years ago and it impressed me.

        The gravity of the pair isn’t much compared with the whole sun, but it has clear effect on the freely moving material on the surface.

        I like the idea of a radical new idea that is supported by at least some of the existing data. The value will come from making a clear, accurate prediction. That could validate the model in some way, in terms of “value” even if the details are not completely understood.

        Compare that with GCMs which can’t predict anything accurately over one or five or fifteen years. The projections they make are “more CO2 means higher temperatures”. Monckton’s irreducible simple climate model can do that already. So can Willis’ simple formula. Pat Frank’s formula does as well. So, where are the models showing why the sun, below the surface, is cooler that it is above? We don’t read much about that.

    • It’s a 22 year cycle (Hale cycle) with maxima 11 years apart, with opposite signs, like a sine wave, although it’s not symmetrical. Because the effects of the maxima are not dependent on the direction of the local magnetic field there is an apparent 11 year cycle (Schwabe cycle).

  12. The idea that differential rotation drives the dynamo is over 50 years old. The new thing here appears to be that it is a narrow layer near the surface where the magnetic action is, whereas the older models had that go deep into the interior. But the proof is in the pudding: can the model make an accurate prediction about the strength of the next solar cycle, given the data of the past ones?

  13. “My hope is that scientists will look at their data in a new light, and the researchers who worked their whole lives to gather that data will have a new tool to understand what it all means,” he said.

    Oh no, my friend, science does not work like that. Those who have spend their lives on studying the sun will fight to the death to maintain their dogma. You will be despised as an incompetent outsider, a heretic. Science advances one funeral at a time.

    • The corona of the sun has signatures indicating 1-2million degree temps, the surface temperature is 6000k. If you want to understand the sun- you have to understand this experiment filmed in January 2014 that causes explosive reactions with the same spectroscopy signatures as those coming from corona. Persona non-grata involved, and scientists will have to fill an entire graveyard to make this major advance in solar astrophysics.

      https://youtu.be/X6cuBw_O1-Y?t=363

  14. Long time readers may recall my mentioning the SAFIRE Project. It truley shows the effect of plasmas (plasmoids) on fission.

  15. I would find it more interesting if it were making new predictions we could then measure. It’s far easier to model (correctly or not) what has happened then correctly predict what is going to happen.

  16. In order to rupture a toroidal line of force, one end must be anchored so that differential rotation can stretch it. If all the action is at the surface, where does the differential rotation come from? I still favor the deep roots theory.

  17. “The type of reactor Jarboe has focused on, a spheromak, contains the electron plasma within a sphere that causes it to self-organize into certain patterns. When Jarboe began to consider the sun, he saw similarities, and created a model for what might be happening in the celestial body.”

    Roughly translates as:
    I didn’t know.
    I don’t know.
    I believe there are similarities to my other job.
    So I wrote a model that explains everything.

    Aren’t I wonderful!? Give me lots of grant monies!

  18. The Sun as a Fusion reactor was explained to me years ago like this…
    The heat created by the fusion causes the Sun to expand, the expansion lowers the pressure at the core slowing the reaction. The slowed reaction ‘cools’ the Sun causing it to contract, which increases the core pressure, which increases the Fusion.
    Perfect self regulation.

    Non scientist factory foreman here….

    • Glad to have you here Nashville,
      Welcome.

      That equilibrium between fusion energy outflow and crushing inward gravity was established 4.55 billion years ago in the span of less than 10,000 years. Then once the Sun began pushing out a plasma solar wind, the dust that enveloped and formed the inner planets (us) and the ice that formed the outer planets was swept away to the Oort Cloud to make help make comets that now occasionally take a trip to the inner solar system to get heated and evaporate.
      Fortunately, we believe then a stupendous rain of comets with mucho-mucho water then brought a young Earth-Moon its vast oceans of water to make this the a one-off Blue Paradise of the Galaxy.
      Earth as we know it is likely indeed a very, very rare happenstance of fortuitous events. Rational people who actually study all the improbabilities involved that led to our highly evolved Life here begin to wonder if there was indeed a Creator.

      • Even the amount of water has to be exact to get our continents & oceans. A bit more, and a water-world (no or very little land). A bit less, and all of it soaks down into the crust & then no oceans.

      • Joel O’Bryan,

        the ice that formed the outer planets was swept away to the Oort Cloud

        must have been shop windows display or kind of stone aggregate ice to live through solar wind acceleration.

  19. Obviously, we don’t know enough about the sun to know whether or not it is climatically active on Earth.

    There is still no positive proof one way or the other, but the odds are that it is active on Earth. It’s the primal source of all that energy swishing around on Earth.

    Leif doesn’t know either, because he’s not seen the effect and he’s looked very hard. I don’t blame him for being dubious about the role of the sun in Earth’s climate.
    =========

  20. All a bit of nonsense really.
    Sun in its natural state devoid of external influences would be a random generator of CMEs and flairs. As sun rotates at about 27+ days (averaged poles to the equator) and the ejected particles travel at ‘slow’ velocity of about 400km/sec the magnetic particle ‘cloud’ is wound in a spiral (known as Parker spiral) as it travels towards outer heliosphere. Dimensions of the magnetic cloud are huge and it envelopes even largest of the planets. If a planet has magnetic field its magnetosphere ‘reconects’ taking some energy out by short-circuiting its electric currents, observed as aurorea at the poles.
    The magnetic giants Jupiter and Saturn during reconstruction take large proportion of energy, but when the two aligned along Parker spiral take so much energy that they are able to magnetically discharge and shut down solar activity, result: the solar minima ensure.
    This effect has been observed during whole of the historical records of the sunspot activity.
    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/J-S-angle.htm
    As quoted above and many times before:
    ‘No matter how elegant the hypothesis, no matter how smart you are, if it doesn’t agree with observation, it’s wrong.’
    Ps. Posted from small handheld android device, apologies for any spelling or other errors.

    • the lower graph is very interesting , could you explain this “J-S magnetospheric angle” you are plotting?

        • Thanks, that gives a better idea of what your angle is, I’ll look into this more later. Birkland currents maybe be getting closer to an explanation, though I was a bit surprised to see a “paper” to use WonkyPedia as a ref. When it gets to quoting ( Tall Bloke ) Tattershall’s blog I gave up reading.

    • Vuk,

      Our Sun would almost certainly *not* be a natural generator of CMEs and flares without external perturbations to the thin magnetic flux tubes deep within the Convective Zone that then produce bgd ARs.

      • Hi
        I’m evaluating both possibility that the external factors excite or alternatively interrupt solar activity. Since the activ periods are by far longer and characterised by strong energy release in contrast to the dormant periods, I tend to think that external cause modulate level of activity to it’s eventual short periods of total or near total suppression, at the time of its maximum effect and a rapid recovery of activity as external factors effect fades out.
        In addition to the minima-Parker spiral alignment, there are two additional factors that I think reinforce this view.
        – Recovery is always faster and stronger effect than a decay, since during forced shut down there is a build-up of energy waiting to burst out.
        – As activity builds up, the more energetic events like flairs and CMEs become more frequent and more numerous in the second half of the cycle, eventually, with help of external factors, lead to the demise of a cycle.
        Of course this is turning on its head classic view that activity is externally caused, but to me it makes perfect sense and it is to a degree supported by observations. Arrangements of electric currents within magnetic cloud is subject of many studies, all agree that the current is connected to the source until its shut down or short circuit. It is known that all magnetic planets do have aurorea, where the energy of cloud is discharged, i.e. the solar activity minima are result of external overload rather than lack of an external exitation.

  21. Please not that electric universe cosmologies are not considered mainstream, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology that is why it is not headline news. As well expect that flat earth experiments will be headline news https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence .

    Also theories that ocnsider special and general relativity wrong can be put in the crackpot column. After all GPS works the world over using special and general relativity corrections http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html .

  22. Anna, Plate Tectonics was not considered “mainstream” until it was. Shouldn’t the test of a theory be how well it explains the observed phenomena? If you will take the time to investigate Plasma Cosmology, you will find that plasma experiments in the lab appear to apply to what we observe in the cosmos. The question is, do they scale up?

    The fact that GPS clocks in orbit run faster than clocks on Earth proves that GPS clocks in orbit run faster than clocks on Earth. Relativity is one explanation, but not necessarily the correct one.

    I have been looking at Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe claims for several years. I have seen a great deal of derision and ad hominems directed their way but have yet to see anyone actually falsify either theory. If you could provide a link to such actual falsification I would appreciate it. You might recall, initially Einstein wasn’t “mainstream” either. Appeals to the “mainstream” or authority are anti-science.

    • I am a retired particle physicist. I have used and seen used special relativity in so many thousands of cases and it has never been falsified by the data. A mathematical theory that does not have special relativity incorporated is automatically falsified, i.m.o. If it is successful in mapping some data , it means it should be able to be derived from the SR and GR theories if one took the trouble.

  23. ctm, you must not believe everything.

    “The Sun, or Sol[citation needed], is the star at the center of the Solar System. It is a nearly perfect sphere of hot plasma,[15][16] with internal convective motion that generates a magnetic field via a dynamo process.”

    “convective motion” like Hadley Cells upon Earth’s surface – lagging Sun’s surface rotation by 11 years, elastic rebounding between surface and Sun’s core the next eleven years.

  24. ctm, you must not believe everything.

    “The Sun, or Sol[citation needed], is the star at the center of the Solar System. It is a nearly perfect sphere of hot plasma,[15][16] with internal convective motion that generates a magnetic field via a dynamo process.”

    “convective motion” like Hadley Cells upon Earth’s surface – lagging Sun’s surface rotation by 11 years, elastic rebounding between surface and Sun’s core the next eleven years.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

  25. Wow. Mass Sun vs. Mass Jupiter:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=mass+of+sun+vs+mass+of+jupiter&oq=mass+sun+versus+mass&aqs=chrome.

    In reality the back / forth swinging of Sun’s interior mass is as reliable as the dynamo forced by a bicycle’s front wheel.

    Other there wouldn’t be reliable 11/22 years cycles.

    / in fact some 11.3/22.6 years /

    super computer models.

    Super duper lights are gonna blind me, shining like a sun

    suppa ppa truppa ppa – ABBA ba

    To paraphrase another Swedish modern arts phenomenon.

Comments are closed.