|
Post by Solarius on Oct 2, 2009 19:50:39 GMT
If magnetic portals connect Sun and the Earth’s magnetosphere, then it is almost certain that similar portals connect to the immensely more powerful and larger Jupiter’s and Saturn’s magnetospheres. For heliospheric curent to reach the Earth via Parker's spiral beauty.nascom.nasa.gov/~ptg/mars/movies/planet_sat/space_20.jpgit takes 2.9 days, Jupiter approximately 1 month and Saturn about 3 months . If there are currents flowing in both directions then combined feedback may take up to 6 months. Dr. Hathaway states; “Cross correlating sunspot number vs. IHV, they found that the IHV predicts the amplitude of the solar cycle 6-plus years in advance with a 94% correlation coefficient. We don't know why this works. The underlying physics is a mystery. But it does work". science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htmJust a small note for Dr. Hathaway (and all those who do believe in the so-called “magnetic memory” of the Sun, by the way I do not): It takes 6 years for the angle of Jupiter-Sun-Saturn configuration to change by 90 degrees. If the mentioned 3-6 months are added then the result is Dr. Hathaway’s “6 plus years”. It is just possible that the 90 degrees change in the Jupiter - Saturn angular displacement will significantly alter the total effectives of the magnetic portals, and in doing so via HS current feedback, affect sunspot cycle. The above may be coincidence and pure speculation, but if it is not then “the underlying physics would not be a mystery; and we would know why IHV predictions work". Dr. Hathaway give us a better alternative.
|
|
|
Post by Solarius on Oct 2, 2009 19:52:16 GMT
Mysterious aurora discovered on Saturn Claims ASTRONOMY online magazine www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=7598This may demonstrate a possible link between solar periodic activity and orbital properties of the major planets i.e. Jupiter and Saturn. This is I believe achieved via a feedback as a result of energy exchange between heliospheric current and planetary magnetospheres. ( www.vukcevic.co.uk follow solar current link )
|
|
|
Post by Solarius on Oct 2, 2009 19:53:47 GMT
Nov 14, 2008, 4:58pm, nautonnier wrote: Given that these 'magnetic ropes' are now accepted as far as Earth is concerned with FTE every 8 minutes or so.... If there are the same such connections to the other planets' magnetospheres what happens should the Earth pass through the lines of 'magnetic rope' to one of the larger planets? Conversely, with several planets in alignment what is the impact of the conjoined 'magnetic ropes' on the Sun? Well, that is not only an interesting but question of a profound importance. I would slightly rephrase it as: what happens should the Earth’s magnetosphere pass through the lines of 'magnetic rope' to one of the larger planets. I have looked into it some time ago and I believe I found evidence of it in the existence of what I have termed “solar subcycle”. Detailed analysis for all of 23 cycles can be found at : www.vukcevic.co.uk , solar subcycle link
|
|
|
Post by Solarius on Oct 2, 2009 19:55:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Solarius on Oct 2, 2009 19:59:43 GMT
In literature and many websites referring to the solar cycles there are frequent references to Gleissberg cycle. There is no agreement about its length. Mr. Timo Niroma estimatets it to be between 72 and 83 years personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspot4.html#gleissDr. L.Svalgard quotes: ~100 year: www.leif.org/research/ISSC06-xx-Svalgaard.pdfIn one of his recent work "A History of Solar Activity over Millennia" Ilya G. Usoskin staits: “Gleissberg cycle”, ranging in 60–120 yr. However, the Gleissberg cycle is not a cycle in the strict periodic sense but rather a modulation of the cycle envelope with a varying timescale of 60 – 120 years (e.g., Gleissberg, 1971) solarphysics.livingreviews.org/op....articlesu4.htmlEven Galesburg’s own work shows total unreliability for forward extrapolation: W. Gleissberg (1) Astronomical Institute, University of Frankfurt/Main, West Germany Received: 18 May 1971 Revised: 30 June 1971 Abstract: After an explanation of the method of forecasting based upon the 80-yr sunspot cycle, reasons are given for assuming that the maximum of the present 80-yr cycle now has passed. Starting from this assumption the following predictions can be made: (1) Cycle 21 will be so weak that the highest value of the smoothed monthly means of the sunspot-relative-numbers will lie between 56 and 96; (2) The minimum at the beginning of Cycle 21 will occur during the first half of 1975; (3) Cycle 21 will attain its maximum between 1979.5 and 1980.5; (4) The minimum terminating Cycle 21 will take place during the first half of 1986. A comparison with other predictions shows that they differ considerably from one another; nevertheless, several of them yield results similar to the predictions stated here. www.springerlink.com/content/r8888r6387217653/This prediction was failure.
|
|
|
Post by Solarius on Oct 2, 2009 20:00:52 GMT
Nov 22, 2008, 3:44pm, csspider57 wrote: Vukcevic, would like to pose a question to you, if I may? Vukcevic, we know that the density of the interstellar cloud that the solar system is currently passing through changes and that there exists an interstellar magnetic field propelling the solar system. Given this...how would this come into play with the changing solar cycle activity? Not looking for a debate or argument... like others here wondering why so much fluxuation in the sun spot cycles. Any info appreciated. Thanks for the comments and references, I will look into it. There is a particular aspect of possible effect of the interstellar magnetic field I am currently considering. As you have realised, I do believe that Solar cycle is modulated via a feedback due to interactions between planetary magnetospheres and heliospheric current. Some years ago, in the early days of my interest in this matter, I discarded gravitational factor which would produce accurately repeated cycles, which is not the case. Since correlation is so close to gravitational factors but not exact, than must be some other time factor involved. I attributed that to the effect of Parker spiral. Now I believe that could be one more time factor at work. If we assume that heliosphere in the near vicinity has a parabolic shape with Sun in its focus and heliosophere is the area where the Sun’s magnetic field is predominant, then gradient of this field will vary along 360 degrees of orbital paths of the major planets. It is reasonable to assume that heliospheric current will be swayed towards path of the least resistance, which will in turn be a factor of the “directional gradient”. Heliospheric current also shapes planetary magnetspheres, with reconnection taking place at back end or the night-side. It follows that magnetospheres do not point directly away from the Sun, but will follow path of the heliospheric current. Hence, spatial relationship between two magnetospheres will not coincide with the astronomical one for the appropriate planets, but will follow "closely" and it will vary. Consequently stronger interstellar magnetic field, grater differential in the “heliospheric directional gradient”, more distortion to heliospheric current path, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Solarius on Oct 2, 2009 20:03:08 GMT
Nov 22, 2008, 11:24pm, csspider57 wrote: Thank you for the response, Vukcevic. If it takes an electric current to produce a magnetic field, as in the Interstellar Magnetic Field, would the sun be receiving feed back current from it also? Or do I have the cart before the horsee here. (backwards) Or would it be putting a drag on the solar system?
They are always unavoidably linked together. Movement of a charged particle constitutes electric current, which in turn creates its own magnetic field. Alternatively, presence of magnetic field will move a charged particle to spin along imaginary so-called “magnetic lines of force” and so create an electric current. Possibly, indirectly, if there is a “reconnection” with the heliosphere, analogous to reconnection that takes place between solar wind and a magnetosphere. Although possible, as far as I am aware, such events have not been observed or reported, so it can be only a matter of speculation.
|
|
|
Post by Solarius on Oct 2, 2009 20:05:00 GMT
Nov 23, 2008, 1:26pm, csspider57 wrote:Auroras on Saturn were discovered as early as Dec. 2000. Vukcevic and all may enjoy reading about some of the earlier findings. Planetary aurorae trace an interplanetary shock from the Sun to Saturn (9 AU) www.obspm.fr/actual/nouvelle/dec04/cme.en.shtmlThank you again for your response Vukcevic. Thanks for the link. My interest in the matter started in 2003. From my point of view I found the authors letter to the Nature far more important. www.obspm.fr/actual/nouvelle/dec04/cme.pdfThe letter refers to events of December 2000. Geometrical configuration of the planets in late 2000. The relative heliocentric longitudes of the Earth, Jupiter and Saturn at the time when the interplanetary shock discussed in this study passed each of them……… The above mentioned alignment coincides with low (minimum) of solar subcycle (within SC23) I have written about elsewhere. solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/....hread=64&page=1 (see 400 day sub-cycle paragraph) or www.vukcevic.co.uk (solar subcycle link)
|
|
|
Post by Solarius on Oct 2, 2009 20:05:44 GMT
Re: Epitrochoid orbits around Barycenters « Result #245 on Nov 27, 2008, 5:43pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some 20 years ago, Jane Feynman one of the top NASA solar scientists from JPL, Pasadena, spoke of solar dynamo operating in chaotic manner around times of grand minima. More recently, Ivanka Charvatova from institute of Geophysics, Prague, published most recent version of her detailed work relating to the solar inertial motion and motion of the Sun around the centre of mass of the Solar System, due to variable positions of the giant planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. www.billhowell.ca/Charvatova%20so....c%20changes.pdfMany authors on this subject have observed correlation between solar periodicity and planetary movements but a reasonable mathematical interpretation for periodicity or amplitude first time appeared in equations in the article “Evidence of a multi-resonant system within solar periodic activity”: xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdfAuthors dealing with gravitational causes have failed to take into account crucial point relating to the Hale cycle i.e. flip of global magnetic field at maxima and sunspot polarity change at minima. These are magnetic events; they can be only a consequence of either electric, magnetic or combined causes and not gravity through its direct or indirect effects. I suggest that solar activity (in absence of planets) would be a random event (most likely at level approaching maxima 150-200), but it is modulated via a feedback by interaction between heliospheric current and planetary magnetospheres. Since Maunder type minima have been reoccurring irregularly for millennia, than they cannot be simply explained by planetary factors alone. External factors (interstellar magnetic field and cosmic rays) affecting heliospheric current by greatly distorting heliosphere, should not be ignored since they may play decisive role in shutting down sunspot activity for prolonged periods of time. see latest contribution at Maunder and related matters solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/....hread=64&page=5
|
|
|
Post by Solarius on Oct 2, 2009 20:07:32 GMT
Two articles quoted bellow may indicate a direct link between solar magnetic activity and heliospheric current feedback. Heliospheric modulation of cosmic rays and solar activity during the Maunder minimum Author USOSKIN Ilya G. et al. In the present paper we compare the variations of cosmic ray intensity with solar and auroral activity during the Maunder minimum (1645-1715) when the Sun was extremely quiet. We use the newly presented group sunspot number series as a measure of early solar activity and the radiocarbon data as a proxy of cosmic ray intensity. We find that both cosmic ray intensity follows the dominant 22-year cyclicity with sunspot activity during the Maunder minimum. Moreover, the strict antiphase between the 22-year variation of cosmic ray intensity and sunspot activity suggests that the 22-year variation in cosmic ray intensity can be explained by the diffusion-dominated terms of cosmic ray modulation without significant drift effects. cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1124791Variation of the cosmic ray intensity during the Maunder Minimum deduced from carbon-14 29th International Cosmic Ray Conference Pune (2005) Presenter: K. Masuda We investigate the features of the eleven-year and the twenty-two year variation of the carbon-14 content. The carbon-14 records show remarkable twenty-two year structure which may be due to cyclic magnetic reversal of the Sun. The variation of carbon-14 content suggests that the polarity of the Sun was negative when the Maunder Minimum occurred. It is evident from the carbon-14 records in Figure 2 that the GCRs had retained cyclic variation through the Maunder Minimum with almost constant amplitude, even though such significant variation is not seen in the sunspot record. dpnc.unige.ch/ams/ICRC-05/PAPERS/SH34/jap-masuda-K-abs1-sh34-oral.pdfIn red: equation as presented in www.vukcevic.co.uk link solar current (page3) and xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf (page 1). Note that pre 1813 Sin instead Cos function is used It is more than obvious that solar magnetic activity during Maunder minimum was proceeding as normal while sunspot activity was suppressed to a minimum. My interpretation of these events is as follows: Heliospheric current (from coronal holes) was interacting with planetary magnetospheres in a regular manner but negative feedback was sufficiently strong to shut down appearance of sunspots. This increase in the feedback may be a consequence of a possible change of intensity in the interstellar magnetic field coinciding with a periodic reduction in activity as caused by the magnetospheric interaction.
|
|
|
Post by Solarius on Oct 2, 2009 20:08:06 GMT
Nov 28, 2008, 1:05am, nobrainer wrote:vukcevic.... you have some interesting theories and your theory on feedback due to interactions between planetary magnetospheres and heliospheric current may very well be the missing link but I would not give up on gravitational effects. I have found that the Jupiter, Earth, Venus sysygies line up precisely with sunspot cycles and Neptune and Uranus conjunctions have a very good correlation with Grand Minima. Article here: landscheidt.auditblogs.com/ Thank you for your note. Of course, gravitational forces as a principal driver of the solar system, should not and cannot be ignored in seriously considering any significant event occurring within the solar system. You will notice that all of my equations as well as the sub-cycle hypothesis are based on planetary orbits and their relationship. However, science of planetary orbital properties is very precise and predictable while solar events are not so. Solar periodicity correlates well to the planetary configuration with a certain factor of uncertainty. All major planets have significant magnetospheres, being locked to the planets, of cause they follow the orbital paths so it is not disputable that some major events take place at or near conjunctions etc. Interaction (reconnection) with heliospheric current takes place at the tail end of a magnetosphere, so considering size of J’s an S’s there may be a significant displacement between planetary and magnetospheric alignment introducing mentioned factor of uncertainty. It should be taken into account that a very little is known about past stability of J’s an S’s etc. magnetic dynamos and consequently effectiveness of the appropriate magnetospheres, while orbital and gravitational properties are unlikely to have changed if at all during past millennia. Authors dealing with gravitational causes only, are not taking into account crucial point relating to the Hale cycle i.e. flip of global magnetic field at maxima and sunspot polarity change at minima. These are magnetic events; they can be only a consequence of either electric, magnetic or combined causes and not due to the gravitational forces alone. Since Maunder type minima have been reoccurring irregularly for millennia, than they cannot be simply explained by planetary factors alone. External factors (interstellar magnetic field and cosmic rays) affecting heliospheric current by greatly distorting heliosphere, should not be ignored since they may play decisive role in shutting down sunspot activity for prolonged periods of time.
|
|
|
Post by Solarius on Oct 2, 2009 20:10:39 GMT
Although I tend to believe there is a link between intensity of solar activity and climate, many dispute it. If however such link does exist (providing my assessment shown in this graph is correct) we are heading for 20-30 years of cooling. Approximation for the overall amplitude's envelope is given by equation : Y= 60 [2 + COS (3pi/2 + 2pi(t-T0)/ 4S) + 0.5 COS (2pi(t-T0)/3( 4J+S+JS))] where To = 1941, J =11.86, JS = 19.85, S = 29.65 A=60 and B=2 are the normalising coefficients. The above equation gives prediction for SC24 around 80 depending on actual timing of the maximum (further away it falls, lower it is going to be). see graph etc on xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf (pages 2 and 3)
|
|
|
Post by Solarius on Oct 2, 2009 20:11:05 GMT
Dec 1, 2008, 10:55am, Acolyte wrote: - what happened in 1860 & 1970? Both times, at peak, the cycle suddenly drops in magnitude. I will write about anomalies (as I see them) at a later date, but for time being see xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdfpage 2 and 3, see also graph Fig.2 on page 2 which points to anomalies including: 1650 - 1700 - Maunder Minimum 1809 - Dalton minimum 1913 - prolonged minimum minimum but not so 1860 and 1969 also diagram on page 1 of this thread (Y2-read line ) with a refference to periods of reduced activity.
|
|
|
Post by Solarius on Oct 2, 2009 20:13:09 GMT
Forthcoming Dalton minimum
|
|
|
Post by Solarius on Oct 2, 2009 20:17:12 GMT
re: NEW DALTON MINIMUM I have had a private email pointing that my equations predicting a new Dalton minimum do not work prior to 1810. For any other enthusiast before plotting the equations take note of following: a) In the cycle periodicity equation prior 1810 the COS functions should be changed to SIN functions (see www.vukcevic.co.uk/ LANL link, bottom of the page 1) b) For the amplitude equation, unfortunately this was omitted in the article, so here it is: prior 1810 the COS function should be changed to SIN function, for the second factor only. For those less enthusiastic you can see extrapolation prior to 1810: You may notice that equations do not show zero values at time of Maunder minimum. According to Carbon14 data it is more than obvious that solar magnetic activity during Maunder minimum was proceeding as normal without large number of sunspots visible i.e. sunspot activity was suppressed to a minimum. I believe that a regularly appearing Dalton minimum was forced to the Maunder minimum by a sudden change in the intensity of galactic cosmic rays pressure reaching the heliosphere , drastically altering relationship between strength of the heliosphere and the planetary magnetospheres, thus in turn affecting effectivness of the heliospheric feedback. It is believed that most galactic cosmic rays derive their energy from supernova explosions, which occur approximately once every 50 years in our Galaxy. For more details on the heliospheric feedback hypothesis see: www.vukcevic.co.uk/ Solar Current link. Obviously I agree with Timo:” ……… I still believe that the Dalton road is more probable………” p.s. 90 degrees phase-shift (COS to SIN) could be explained by J-S-U fractional moments (?), more details are required. Timo’s help is needed here !
|
|