Questions for Dr. L Svalgaard ---- II

[justsomeguy]

How do you do the 10.7-SSN ratio? Do you subtract the base 66 10.7 before you do the ratio?

[lsvalgaard]

Jul 14, 2011 10:00:43 GMT justsomeguy said:

How do you do the 10.7-SSN ratio? Do you subtract the base 66 10.7 before you do the ratio?

Explained on slide #10 of www.leif.org/research/SHINE-2010-Microwave-Flux.pdf
Using the equation on the Figure

[solarlux]

Dr. Svalgaard,

I immensely enjoyed the paper you co-authored, "The 1859 Solar-Terrestrial Disturbance and the Current Limits of Extreme Space Weather Activity." Just had a few questions:

1. If solar explosion intensity is dominated by local solar effects, is it in theory possible to have a Carrington-caliber event even if the LP effect removes the visibility of sunspots?

2. What's your best estimate range for Dst_max for the 1859 storm?

3. Would you agree that impacts of another large Carrington-magnitude event are generally overhyped and exaggerated by media? (*see my comments below)


* In comparing the 1859 storm with other more recent storms (Mar '89, Mar '01, Jul '00), I don't get the sense that it would be the end of life as we know it. 2e10 p/cm^2 protons is not an issue for most satellites (~3 krad dose) and they are typically hardened with significant margin for internal & external electron charging. Perhaps the biggest question is whether a long-term electrical blackout would result (i.e. destruction of the 100kV+ transformers, etc). The '89 storm (listed at -548 nT) caused a 9-hr blackout in Quebec (possibly due to increased sensitivity associated with local geology) and prompted industry to make some upgrades to improve resilience. It's not clear to me that -1700 nT (i.e. 3X magnitude compared to the 1989 event) would cause long-lasting power loss / widespread destruction.

[lsvalgaard]

Jul 14, 2011 14:41:52 GMT solarlux said:

Dr. Svalgaard,

I immensely enjoyed the paper you co-authored, "The 1859 Solar-Terrestrial Disturbance and the Current Limits of Extreme Space Weather Activity." Just had a few questions:

1. If solar explosion intensity is dominated by local solar effects, is it in theory possible to have a Carrington-caliber event even if the LP effect removes the visibility of sunspots?

2. What's your best estimate range for Dst_max for the 1859 storm?

3. Would you agree that impacts of another large Carrington-magnitude event are generally overhyped and exaggerated by media? (*see my comments below)


* In comparing the 1859 storm with other more recent storms (Mar '89, Mar '01, Jul '00), I don't get the sense that it would be the end of life as we know it. 2e10 p/cm^2 protons is not an issue for most satellites (~3 krad dose) and they are typically hardened with significant margin for internal & external electron charging. Perhaps the biggest question is whether a long-term electrical blackout would result (i.e. destruction of the 100kV+ transformers, etc). The '89 storm (listed at -548 nT) caused a 9-hr blackout in Quebec (possibly due to increased sensitivity associated with local geology) and prompted industry to make some upgrades to improve resilience. It's not clear to me that -1700 nT (i.e. 3X magnitude compared to the 1989 event) would cause long-lasting power loss / widespread destruction.

1: yes, but a large sunspot would always help.
2: Dst 1500 nT or so
3: the important parameter is the change of the magnetic field dB/dt, which is unpredictable. There is always the hype factor, but I think the danger is real to perhaps a lower degree, but still very serious. It will not be 'end of life' but perhaps a blow to our technological infrastructure. We are too reliant on that.

[colinaldridge]

Hi Lief.. Read you proposal and presentation about recalibrating sunspot numbers and the excellent summary of our collective ignorance about where the sun cycles are going.. When do you expect the study work on sun spot numbers to conclude?

[lsvalgaard]

Jul 15, 2011 11:28:57 GMT colinaldridge said:

Hi Lief.. Read you proposal and presentation about recalibrating sunspot numbers and the excellent summary of our collective ignorance about where the sun cycles are going.. When do you expect the study work on sun spot numbers to conclude?

We will have a first workshop in September and a second one next year in Brussels.

[arjan]

Hi doc.

We had an uprise of activity from january till march. After some quiete we're seeing a new uprise of new active reagons that never seem to develop into a serious area and decay premature, sometimes with a little puff.
The sunspot number is quite high with a very low GOES xray background of about 2.0-2.6
The new reagons also appear to pop up further from the equator lately.
Is this a sign that the cycle is already after maximum or is this still fitting in a cycle 14 senario? (especially the polewards movement)

[lsvalgaard]

Jul 18, 2011 19:55:43 GMT arjan said:

Hi doc.

We had an uprise of activity from january till march. After some quiete we're seeing a new uprise of new active reagons that never seem to develop into a serious area and decay premature, sometimes with a little puff.
The sunspot number is quite high with a very low GOES xray background of about 2.0-2.6
The new reagons also appear to pop up further from the equator lately.
Is this a sign that the cycle is already after maximum or is this still fitting in a cycle 14 senario? (especially the polewards movement)

I don't think we are past maximum. SC14 looks a good analogue, so we might have a similarly long, drawn-out maximum.

[belric]

In the "Journal of the British Astronomical Association", April 2011, one reads :

"With the prolonged period of low solar activity, the appearance and frequency of noctilucent clouds (NLC) has been the prime focus of many aurora section observers for some years. This is because it has been shown for some decades that NLC frequency is inversely related to solar activity."

Are there truly more NLCs when the solar activity is low? Has it been shown for some decades that NLC frequency is inversely related to solar activity?

[lsvalgaard]

Jul 20, 2011 7:16:13 GMT belric said:

In the "Journal of the British Astronomical Association", April 2011, one reads :

"With the prolonged period of low solar activity, the appearance and frequency of noctilucent clouds (NLC) has been the prime focus of many aurora section observers for some years. This is because it has been shown for some decades that NLC frequency is inversely related to solar activity."

Are there truly more NLCs when the solar activity is low? Has it been shown for some decades that NLC frequency is inversely related to solar activity?

This is not known for sure, but ultraviolet radiation from the Sun breaks water molecules apart, reducing the amount of water available to form noctilucent clouds, so there might be a connection.

[jamesjjlm]

Hello again Dr Svalgaard

I ran across a paper that I am hoping you have a bit of time to look over. I am curious as to if you can tell me whether his correlations have any merit in reality. While I realize that differences between the polar rotation and equator on the sun have been speculated to be the cause of the 11 year cycle, does the author provide anything useful? Are his correlations and data even correct?

Here is the link:
tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/03/05/patrick-geryl-the-sun%E2%80%99s-eleven-year-magnetic-reversal/

[lsvalgaard]

Jul 22, 2011 21:22:08 GMT jamesjjlm said:

Hello again Dr Svalgaard

I ran across a paper that I am hoping you have a bit of time to look over. I am curious as to if you can tell me whether his correlations have any merit in reality. While I realize that differences between the polar rotation and equator on the sun have been speculated to be the cause of the 11 year cycle, does the author provide anything useful? Are his correlations and data even correct?

Here is the link:
tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/03/05/patrick-geryl-the-sun%E2%80%99s-eleven-year-magnetic-reversal/

I don't think this is worth wasting your time on.

[jamesjjlm]

Is that a general "no" to all my questions? Seems to be a common quality of scientists to answer these type of questions in a way that always requires clarification.

[justsomeguy]

I think Dr Svalgaard is trying to be nice.

Jim-

Here is the current state of the torsional oscillation in layman's terms, and it might be a good place to start toward your understanding of the current consensus of what drive's the cycle:

physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46387

This also relates to other data about the current sun and the possible small cycle 25.

[justsomeguy]

Dr, Svalgaard-

You have brought up the idea that the polar magnetism seems to argue for a large solar cycle 25, but the torsional oscillation argues for a small one. How do these forces interact and are you still betting on a larger cycle, or a large cycle that is "spotless", or a small cycle.