|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 24, 2011 6:28:41 GMT
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. OK, the specific answers are NO, NO, and NO. The paper is just numerology, almost of the category 'not even wrong': en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong |
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Jul 24, 2011 14:27:54 GMT
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 24, 2011 16:41:56 GMT
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. Traditional wisdom has it that small cycles [e.g. SC24] rises slowly to a late maximum and that the polar fields change at maximum. Now that it seems that the polar fields are already in the process of reversing [at least a year ahead of 'schedule'] perhaps traditional wisdom is wrong. If so, we really don't know what will happen. An early reversal would argue for a large next cycle, but, as you point out, other indicators point to a small SC25. Then there is the L&P effect which argues for a small SC25. So, all in all, we don't know. This makes the current cycle really exciting. Ask me again in three years ;D |
|
|
|
Post by jamesjjlm on Jul 24, 2011 21:31:53 GMT
Thanks guys, I really appreciate it.
to justsomeguy: The problem is that I didn't actually want him to be nice. My goal is to distinguish right from wrong, and I can make that call much easier if I just heard the answer straight forward. No sugar-coating is necessary for me, since I have no opinion; I am just trying to learn.
But again, I appreciate Dr. Svalgaard taking the time to look at it, and you for giving me the link. I will take some time later to look at it. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Jul 24, 2011 23:46:32 GMT
'Tis exciting times, thanks again for educating us newbies. I know infinitely more than I would trying to tease it from the literature alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by sranderson on Aug 6, 2011 15:11:28 GMT
I find it a little odd the TSI has declined so much recently even though the 10.7 flux and sunspots count are up. I understand that the sun is a very noisy place, but this particular spike downward seems out of place. Based on the previous behavior as reflected in your hi-res daily graph, this appears to be an inconsistency. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 6, 2011 19:38:32 GMT
I find it a little odd the TSI has declined so much recently even though the 10.7 flux and sunspots count are up. I understand that the sun is a very noisy place, but this particular spike downward seems out of place. Based on the previous behavior as reflected in your hi-res daily graph, this appears to be an inconsistency. Any thoughts? While TSI and F10.7 and the SSN all vary together on the large scale, e.g. monthly or yearly means, TSI and F10.7 [+SSN] vary oppositely on the scale of days. The reason is that a big sunspot group will increase F10.7 and SSN, but since it is dark will actually decrease TSI as observed. Today's TSI is really low because of that. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 11, 2011 23:43:35 GMT
The reason is that a big sunspot group will increase F10.7 and SSN, but since it is dark will actually decrease TSI as observed. Today's TSI is really low because of that.
That is confusing! We have been led to believe that TSI goes up when the sun is active. Could you explain this a bit more? Are sunspots cold?
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 12, 2011 2:29:22 GMT
The reason is that a big sunspot group will increase F10.7 and SSN, but since it is dark will actually decrease TSI as observed. Today's TSI is really low because of that.That is confusing! We have been led to believe that TSI goes up when the sun is active. Could you explain this a bit more? Are sunspots cold? The TSI consists of two parts: 1) one that dims the TSI when a colder (than the surroundings - but still very hot) sunspot is on the disk and 2) one that brightens TSI when there are magnetic fields surrounding the spot. The second part is on average twice as large as the first, so the net result is brightening. The first part is best seen when the spot is near the center of the sun at which time the second part is barely visible. As the spot nears the limb its visibility decreases, but the visibility of the second part increases. So you can see it is a bit complicated, but well understood. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 12, 2011 3:32:52 GMT
So you can see it is a bit complicated, but well understood.
Thanks for that! Would it be too incorrect to think of these spots kind of like whirlpools sucking energy in and having it flow out on the periphery?
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 12, 2011 5:36:28 GMT
So you can see it is a bit complicated, but well understood.Thanks for that! Would it be too incorrect to think of these spots kind of like whirlpools sucking energy in and having it flow out on the periphery? No, not exactly, but close. The energy comes from below and is carried up by convection. The strong magnetic field in sunspots tends to suppress the convection inside the spot, so the energy instead flows out around the spot |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 14, 2011 14:43:02 GMT
No, not exactly, but close. The energy comes from below and is carried up by convection. The strong magnetic field in sunspots tends to suppress the convection inside the spot, so the energy instead flows out around the spot.
That is really fascinating! So magnetism has some control over the convection of gases. Sounds like a "real" greenhouse effect, especially since the net output goes up.
Do we have a good understanding of the actual relative temperatures of the surface of spots and the surfaces of the surrounding regions?
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 14, 2011 16:02:36 GMT
No, not exactly, but close. The energy comes from below and is carried up by convection. The strong magnetic field in sunspots tends to suppress the convection inside the spot, so the energy instead flows out around the spot.That is really fascinating! So magnetism has some control over the convection of gases. Sounds like a "real" greenhouse effect, especially since the net output goes up. Do we have a good understanding of the actual relative temperatures of the surface of spots and the surfaces of the surrounding regions? yes, we know the temperatures very well. The spots vary between 3000–4500 K (2727–4227 °C), in contrast to the surrounding material at 5,777 K. Small spots are warmer than large spots. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 15, 2011 4:08:30 GMT
yes, we know the temperatures very well. The spots vary between 3000–4500 K (2727–4227 °C), in contrast to the surrounding material at 5,777 K. Small spots are warmer than large spots.
Hey thanks for your patience with me. You are a great sun ambassador taking your time to answer these questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Aug 16, 2011 13:10:49 GMT
|
|
