Solar and Aurora Activity Chat

[Mondy]

I've just read his book 'The Chilling Stars' and I reckon that Svensmark and Calder would have been listening to NASA very carefully and will probably be preparing something already.

Yep, I too read the book and championed Svensmark about 2 / 3 years ago on here. It was surprisingly easily dismissed by a some on here, and elsewhere.

Regarding the bright lights in the sky last night - perhaps it was this:

http://www.spaceweather.com/

Im sure Henrik Svensmark at the Danish Space Centre will be extremely interested in this data. Anybody know of any figures for cloud cover this year compared with previous years that might tie in with his theories regarding cosmic rays and cloud formation?

There was something, I think, about cosmic ray counts over Antarctica recently. I forget exactly what the outcome was again, but they did tie in with some of his theories..best go googling again!

May as well throw this in here as well: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/23/nasa...ate-of-the-sun/

[frogesque]

http://www.spaceweather.com/

Sunspot 1002: small but a cycle 24 http://nwstatic.co.uk/forum/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif

[Anti-Mild]

http://www.spaceweather.com/

Sunspot 1002: small but a cycle 24 http://nwstatic.co.uk/forum/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif

It's only a small one though. I reckon it'll be gone tomorrow and the sunspot number will be zero again.

Incidentally, does anyone have any idea of the last time the sunspot number was higher than 20?

[Roger J Smith]

With regard to the Hale cycle, there is a reversal of the polarity of sunspot groups as viewed from east to west, in one cycle the north pole leads and the south pole follows in the sun's northern hemisphere, but vice versa in the southern. Then in the next cycle, these two arrangements are reversed. This is how observers tell that a new cycle has started, when they see the reversed polarity of sunspot groups. When there is not this long of a quiet period, sometimes the old cycle is still fading as the new one appears. The usual evolution is from high latitudes (45-55 deg) towards the solar equator during each cycle.

Sorry, I don't have at hand the info as to which polarity occurred in the now-ending cycle and which one can be expected in the next one, perhaps someone out there does and could post it.

But this effect has only been known and followed in detail since 1905. Before that we cannot be certain there was an alternation, or to which cycles the various polarities can be assigned because of the more random nature of the quiet periods such as 1875-1915, and 1807-27 for instance. There may have been two weak cycles in a row with the same polarity throwing off the alternating nature of the phenomenon.

Elsewhere I had a thread about cause and effect of solar cycles possibly being linked to Jupiter and Saturn's interactions with the solar system magnetic field. I showed evidence that in the more regular active periods there would be a pulse of about 10 years with solar maxima taking place generally in the 2-4 years leading up to alignments at 9.93 year intervals of the two large planets. Since these are alternately same side of the Sun and opposite, this also has some plausible connection to the Hale cycle, although I wasn't able to work out what connection that might be (Jupiter and Saturn have opposite magnetic polarities, I believe Saturn is like the earth's while Jupiter is opposite to both of them).

In the periods of weaker activity, the peaks seem to fall more like every 12 years and show some tendency to occur when Jupiter is on the March-April side of the solar system, but not showing much if any tendency to relate to alignments with Saturn, so this suggests that somehow the effect can be temporarily shut down then restarted at seemingly random intervals since the timing of weak periods varies from every 80 to every 120 years and the length of weak intervals seems to vary from 20-60 years.

If we arrange the more recent data since the Maunder min (which I would say was after the moderate peak in 1649 and before the strong peak in 1718, so about 1653-1714), then we have the following (the letters are from Schove's study of sunspot cycle intensity, and range from a peak of SSS to a min of WWW).

I have arranged the data so that you can see similar groupings, the two weaker periods I mentioned near the bottom of each column, and some postulated Hale winters as a bonus.

1705 (WW) . 1718 (S) .. 1723 .... 1837 (SS) . 1848 (S) .. 1855 .... 1905 (W) ... 1917 (S) ... (1917)

1727 (SS) . 1738 (S) .. 1744 ....... 1860 (S) . 1870 (S) .. 1879 ...... 1928 (M) .. 1938 (S) ..... 1942

1750 (M) ... 1761 (M) .. 1763 ..... 1883 (W) .. 1893 (M) .. 1895 .... 1947 (SS) . 1957 (SSS) ... 1963

1769 (MS) . 1778 (SS) .. 1784......................................................1968 (MS) .. 1979 (SS) ... 1985

1787 (SS) . 1801 (W) .. 1808........................................................1989 (SS) .. 2001 (M) ... 2009 ??

1816 (WW) . 1830 (MW) .. (1830)

Now some comments. The Maunder minimum period was still going on as this series begins, I included the weak peak of 1705 just to space the other cycles appropriately. There were numerous cold winters in the Maunder of course, including 1684, 1709 and as it was ending, 1716.

In each case, my choice of the "Hale winter" is guided by the concept of finding a reasonably cold winter close to the minimum after the second cycle. For "1744" which was a moderately cold winter, obviously 1740 would be a better case but the strong peak of 1738 was still near maximum then. The case for 1763 is good, and there were several more cold winters to follow. Similarly as with 1740, the cold winter of 1780 came too soon after peak but 1784 was a good case.

So far I have not mentioned "other" cold winters outside the Hale or long-min windows because there weren't that many, but 1795 clearly counts as one, occurring near the end of the first of the couplet. The one thing I should mention (again) is that I have no clear indication that this is an accurate depiction of the Hale cycle before 1900, and in each case the rhythm could have been opposite to that shown here. But in that case 1795 was too near the fade-out of the 1787 long cycle which had an unusually long spell of significant activity and even a secondary peak around 1795.

Going forward, the winter of 1808 was not spectacular but is the only good fit, 1814 was too close to the peak of the rather weak 1816 cycle. In fact from 1814 to 1830 we are back into a period of weak activity that in this theory would permit more numerous cold winters, which certainly showed up (including 1814, 1820, 1823, 1830). This is why I cite 1830 as the Hale winter, because the rest of the winters in the very short quiet spell before 1837 were all fairly average.

A cold winter in 1838 is similar to 1947 in that it happens near a sunspot maximum. The concept begins to "work" again with the cold winter of 1855 after the rather long fade-out of the 1848 peak (a similar looking cycle to 2001 by the way).

Once again, there are not a lot of really cold winters until 1879 to 1881, a period that "Haled" rather late compared to many, but near the sunspot minimum around 1876-77 there was a large El Nino event. This may have bumped the Hale winters into the startup of the weak 1883 peak.

I've cited 1895 as the next Hale winter although it came rather too soon after the 1893 moderate peak, perhaps this could be seen as a mixture of Hale and general solar weakness through that period. However, the theory would in fairness be suggesting a lot of cold winters in the period 1896-1915 and that clearly didn't verify.

The rather cold winter of 1917 is another sunspot max cold winter, but the Hale winter failed to show after this peak. Perhaps there was some wintry episode some historian can dredge up, but the statistics all look rather mild in the sunspot minimum of the early to mid 1920s.

Following the 1928 and 1937 cycles, there was Hale by the dozen, so to speak (if we count months and not years). Just like 1740, 1940 came too soon after the peak which was still quite active, but 1942, 1943 and 1945 seem like Hale winters.

The legendary winter of 1947 and the cold winter of 1956 were peak dwellers once again, but following the strongest peak since 1372 came a quiet sun period with the notable cold winter of 1963.

The next couplet, 1968 and 1979, seem to continue the general theme, not a lot of cold winter developments through the cycles until the peak cold winter of 1979, then a rash of colder winters in the Hale period, 1982 somewhat early, 1984-87 straddling and remaining somewhat later than the overall theory suggests.

Since then, of course, slim pickings for cold winter fanciers, note that we have said little about the quiet periods between cycles in these couplets, but perhaps that would show up statistically as a secondary window, and 1996 fits in there to some extent. I think, looking at North American data, there are a lot of very cold winters in this part of the alternating or "22-year" cycle. For example, I found these ... 1888, 1912, 1934, 1951, 1971, 1994. I would go as far as saying that the Hale effect seems reversed in North America, the pulse of colder winters seems to occupy the other half of the cycle, but more like an even pulsation between solar peaks.

Sorry, this is a very long and complicated post, I will try to answer any questions about it. The information I have shown here tends to verify the concept of a Hale winter phenomenon although it shows that the timing is not precise, so we cannot draw firm conclusions about which of the next several is the best candidate; it would appear about 75% likely that there will be a cold winter soon from this.

Edited September 23, 2008 by Roger J Smith

[Crepuscular Ray]

The official NASA press release - or at least the most relevant and succint

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/23...d.htm?list72553

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Fascinating, and looking as anticipated by research I have read. [some folk know I've been on about this for sometime] 24 isn't going to be the minima, cycle 25 will and it is going to be very very low. Folks this IS significant and I think a Maunder period beckons. I re-assert my view point stated many times. I believe that by 2015 and maybe as early as 2012 it will be OBVIOUS that we are in global cooling. We will lose the 20th century warming and then take another 1c off at minima.

BFTP

[Roger J Smith]

Well, strictly in terms of solar analogues, if we are facing a prolonged minimum and not just a longer than average quiet spell, we are somewhere around 1808 or 1878 at present, with a series of stronger peaks behind us and the Hale cycle in the current orientation (probably).

If this were 1808, we should have had a cold winter last year and then it would be a while before a run of colder weather set in along with a weak solar cycle.

If this were 1878, bingo, so to speak.

Now it could even be 1657 although the run of active cycles in the first half of the 17th cycle was a pretty thin crop, the stronger cycles were back around 1580.

Taking those three possible analogues as our guide, the prospects look moderately good for cold winters in the next generation, at least once or twice a decade.

Of course, it all depends on whether the solar activity really is heading for a long-term minimum. I suspect it is because the next J-S alignment is in late 2009 and early 2010, and in the analogue cases (1947, 1893, 1830, 1769) you can see that cycles had usually started up by about the 2006 point in this cycle and in two cases (1947, 1769) had peaked by now relative to the alignment. In 1830 it was a weaker cycle that peaked about now in relative terms, and in 1893 it was a moderate cycle that had already started up but was not to peak until the analogue of 2012. (Please note, there is a cycle of about 59.55 years between analogue cases. These rotate slowly around the ecliptic in the prograde direction, and catch up to the series ahead after about eight centuries. This can explain any longer-term variations in solar activity because if there are really good alignments these tend to repeat every 30 years in one series or the other J-S alignment years end in zero in the latter 20th century, in 1 from the early 19th to mid-20th, and in 2 for the 18th century and first quarter of the 19th and so on back into the past ... the Sporer minimum may have had weak activity but this was still largely governed by J-S alignments, only it turned out to be weaker according to the auroral evidence used).

This one shows no signs of starting yet, really. Whenever there is a totally absent J-S opportunity peak, as in 1811-12, the next one is often weak and early (this is based mainly on the rather sketchy results from pre-Maunder research). The only modern J-S alignment that failed was 1900-01, something that might have been anticipated once 1893 came in rather weak and late. The next one was early and weak (1905 with secondary peak 1907). This is also the one exception to the general rule of cold winters becoming more frequent in times of low solar activity.

Fred, I agree that the prospects look good but I am somewhat troubled by the lack of 100% correlation, do you see any particular reason why the period around 1900 to 1915 failed to produce cold winters in Europe? I suspect a major global warming episode had started up around 1890 and that North America was far too easy for reconquest of arctic air masses in that early stage of what you might view as the modern climate of the 20th century compared to the late LIA climate of the 19th century. Perhaps later on in the 20th when North America was fully warmed up to more modern levels, this ease of reconquest factor faded out and Europe was once again as plausible an outflow region as North America.

It would be interesting to compare also the data for eastern Asia to see how unusual cold winters fit into this complex pattern. It is relatively difficult for a pattern to service all three regions (Europe, North America, eastern Asia) with cold winters at once, usually it is either one or two of these.

Edited September 24, 2008 by Roger J Smith

[JRMcLeod]

must reply to this

had the airband scanner on about that time last night ,a pilot was asking cardiff ATC If the had anything on radar as the had see n something very bright and traveling fast ,he said towards birmingham, they must have answered in the negative and there fore he would not file a report,you dont give a direction for your fireball and i,m not sure of the pilots position but it obviously concerned him enough to contact radar

As i was travelling southbound, the fireball travelled from west to east. I emailed the Aberdeen Astronomical Society with the report and 2 of their members witnessed it also. They informed me that it was likely to be a bt of space junk because it was travelling so slowly, no matter what it was, it was amazing to see.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Excellent post Roger and very helpful. I think there are many pieces to the jigsaw and it is this that is falling into place and maybe a reason of potential difference to early 1900s. We have perturbation AND -ve PDO cycle in tandem this time, we have GWO theory in tandem and the way this cycle is going a potential for deep minima. Re only 2 areas getting hit with cold and all 3 rare is valid and will probably hold true.

BFTP

[Snowyowl9]

Very interesting posts by Roger and BFTP, the only disadvantage if we`re heading for a more prolonged solar minima is very little aurora displays in the near future in the UK.

Advantage colder winters are a better chance, although saying that I saw my first northern lights display in March 1986 pure luck,land that was a cold winter/cold snowy first week of march as 1986 was a cold year overall.

Edited September 24, 2008 by Snowyowl9

[Gray-Wolf]

I don't think we can discount some 'internal reorganization' thus far not measured/witnessed.

Could we be looking at the inner layers of the sun reorganizing their magnetic properties and trapping/slowing the escape of particles? Could cycle 24 coincide with the period where an internal 'tightly wound' magnetic Field lets go?

Where the Mayans better observers of the sky's than we give them credit for and 2012 will truely turn out to be something special?

We know that the external shell of the sun's magnetism 'winds up' around an 11yr (or so) cycle so is there a complementary 'internal' cycle that is now reaching it's peak only to free lots of energy trapped by a tightly wound electromagnetic field over the next solar cycle???

If we have measured a slow tail off of density of solar wind over the last 50yrs then how do we know that it's 'rebound' will not be as dramatic as the 'twang' that undoes the tightly wound external magnetic field (setting the sun up for it's next 'cycle') and ,if so, what does that mean for an electrically dependent society???

All good fun eh?

[Guest Shetland Coastie]

Quiesence restored! No sunspots - sunspot number 0!

Space Weather

[LadyPakal]

I'll just chuck this in here:

http://www.exchangemagazine.com/morningpos...day/091811.html

'New theory predicts the largest ozone hole over Antarctica will occur this month

A University of Waterloo scientist says that cosmic rays are a key cause for expanding the hole in the ozone layer over the South Pole -- and predicts the largest ozone hole will occur in one or two weeks.'

Combine this with the lower solar winds recently announced, and then add this into the pot:

'The Heliosphere is thinning, and thus will block fewer cosmic rays. Heinrick Svensmark theorizes that an increase in cosmic rays reaching the Earth will drive cloud formation, increase the planet’s albedo (reflectivity), thus cooling it.' Quote from http://icecap.us/index.php

Give it a stir and see what we get...

Edited September 26, 2008 by LadyPakal

[Mondy]

...cool, something else to divert attention from agw ;-)

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

This is a concern of mine and the problem is that it just keeps on elongating. I said several times over the past year or so that it won't be long at all before the AGW theory and the cooling theory due to natural forcing are tested.......folks the test is underway make no bones about that....

BFTP

We know that the external shell of the sun's magnetism 'winds up' around an 11yr (or so) cycle so is there a complementary 'internal' cycle that is now reaching it's peak only to free lots of energy trapped by a tightly wound electromagnetic field over the next solar cycle???

If we have measured a slow tail off of density of solar wind over the last 50yrs then how do we know that it's 'rebound' will not be as dramatic as the 'twang' that undoes the tightly wound external magnetic field (setting the sun up for it's next 'cycle') and ,if so, what does that mean for an electrically dependent society???

All good fun eh?

No I doubt it. We are heading towards a true minima, everything is now pointing towards that not just the known timings of the cycles but the 'actual' evidence of the sun's behaviour is now supporting that too.

BFTP

[mettalfabrik]

some big prominence activity going now

http://spaceweather3.com/

[mettalfabrik]

another pic from today looks more dramatic this one

[mettalfabrik]

test from sidc

:Issued: 2008 Sep 28 1214 UTC

:Product: documentation at http://www.sidc.be/products/xut

#--------------------------------------------------------------------#

# GEOALERT message from the SIDC (RWC-Belgium) #

#--------------------------------------------------------------------#

GEOALERT BRU272

UGEOA 30512 80928 1157/ 9930/

10282 20282 30282

99999

PLAIN

NOTE: the above forecasts are valid from 1230UT, 28 Sep 2008 until 30 Sep 2008

PREDICTIONS FOR 28 Sep 2008 10CM FLUX: 066 / AP: 001

PREDICTIONS FOR 29 Sep 2008 10CM FLUX: 066 / AP: 001

PREDICTIONS FOR 30 Sep 2008 10CM FLUX: 066 / AP: 014

COMMENT: Quiet conditions are expected for the next 48 hours.

Geomagnetic activity is expected to reach unsettled to possibly minor

storm levels by the end of Sept. 30th due to the recurrence of a coronal

hole. The all-quiet alert is therefore suspended.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Sunspot count....still a big fat zero. Ariston and on comes to mind.

BFTP

[James M]

It seems two new sunspots could be forming this morning.

http://www.spaceweather.com/images2008/30s...6lfmvdddo4so2j4

[Crepuscular Ray]

Two new spots emerging. It's not obvious which cycle they belong to yet, though.

http://www.spaceweather.com

[Guest Shetland Coastie]

Indeed. But are they cycle 23 or 24 spots?

Beat me to it crep http://nwstatic.co.uk/forum/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif

Edited September 30, 2008 by Shetland Coastie

[Crepuscular Ray]

Indeed. But are they cycle 23 or 24 spots?

Beat me to it crep http://nwstatic.co.uk/forum/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif

James wins, though.

From their positions, one near the equator and the other at a fairly high latitude, there's a possibility that one may be cycle 23 and the other cycle 24.

Edited September 30, 2008 by crepuscular ray

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

James wins, though.

From their positions, one near the equator and the other at a fairly high latitude, there's a possibility that one may be cycle 23 and the other cycle 24.

Indeed during the beginning/early part of a solar cycle the suspots appear at 'high' latitude and so it looks like one is of cycle 24. At the end of the cycle the suspot is very close to the sun's equator and so it looks like one is also cycle 23. What does this mean? Cycle 24 is still not underway as 23 has not ended.

BFTP

[Crepuscular Ray]

Indeed during the beginning/early part of a solar cycle the suspots appear at 'high' latitude and so it looks like one is of cycle 24. At the end of the cycle the suspot is very close to the sun's equator and so it looks like one is also cycle 23. What does this mean? Cycle 24 is still not underway as 23 has not ended.

BFTP

There's usually a period when spots from both cycles can occur. It's how long the switchover is taking and how little activity there has been for so long that's odd.

http://www.ucar.edu/communications/newsrel...00/maunder.html