|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Feb 22, 2013 20:41:46 GMT
The L&P data is not analyzed separately for hemispheres. The raw data would allow this as the spot positions are known. You can find a discussion of Joy's law separated by hemispheres here arxiv.org/pdf/1209.1642.pdfThey fi nd an asymmetry between the hemispheres in the mean tilt angles. On average, the tilts are greater in the southern than in the northern hemisphere for all latitude zones, and the differences increase with increasing latitude. What do you think? Yes, that was the paper I was reading. On a very little understanding of the physics, I would be inclined to think that magnetic field strength and rotation rate would determine the angle. That's why I was wondering if L&P ever produced separate hemisphere data. As for "why"?? I could guess and say the radiative interior body that creates the shearing force is not always in the center of the sun and is pulled and distorted along the rotational axis much like a speaker magnet is pushed and pulled. When it reaches a certain height, shear generated flux is at minimum because the rotation is slower and upward momentum is stopped by gravity and reverses. It's also not a solid so it's more like a distortion in the distribution of volume that is cyclic. The volume distortion from an ideal cylinder would create different sunspots in N and S hemisphere including number and angle and field strength. the more complex the distortion, the stranger the effects might be. Just a thought. I don't think the radiative interior is pulled anywhere. That is where almost all the mass is. |
|
timb
New Member
Posts: 45 
|
Post by timb on Feb 23, 2013 0:25:06 GMT
Yes, that was the paper I was reading. On a very little understanding of the physics, I would be inclined to think that magnetic field strength and rotation rate would determine the angle. That's why I was wondering if L&P ever produced separate hemisphere data. As for "why"?? I could guess and say the radiative interior body that creates the shearing force is not always in the center of the sun and is pulled and distorted along the rotational axis much like a speaker magnet is pushed and pulled. When it reaches a certain height, shear generated flux is at minimum because the rotation is slower and upward momentum is stopped by gravity and reverses. It's also not a solid so it's more like a distortion in the distribution of volume that is cyclic. The volume distortion from an ideal cylinder would create different sunspots in N and S hemisphere including number and angle and field strength. the more complex the distortion, the stranger the effects might be. Just a thought. I don't think the radiative interior is pulled anywhere. That is where almost all the mass is. More like a distorted liquid. Like a hurricane low pressure system can "pull" up on the ocean. Nearly all the mass is in the ocean water. localized forces distort the surface. The local impact is measurable but the big picture makes it insignificant. Is the radiative interior a sphere, cylinder, flattened sphere or something even more complex and dynamic? |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Feb 24, 2013 4:14:57 GMT
I don't think the radiative interior is pulled anywhere. That is where almost all the mass is. More like a distorted liquid. Like a hurricane low pressure system can "pull" up on the ocean. Nearly all the mass is in the ocean water. localized forces distort the surface. The local impact is measurable but the big picture makes it insignificant. Is the radiative interior a sphere, cylinder, flattened sphere or something even more complex and dynamic? a nice round sphere as evidenced by helioseismology. |
|
timb
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by timb on Feb 26, 2013 11:19:38 GMT
More like a distorted liquid. Like a hurricane low pressure system can "pull" up on the ocean. Nearly all the mass is in the ocean water. localized forces distort the surface. The local impact is measurable but the big picture makes it insignificant. Is the radiative interior a sphere, cylinder, flattened sphere or something even more complex and dynamic? a nice round sphere as evidenced by helioseismology. I hate it when facts get in the way  . It would be nice to propagate the asymmetry to the interface that generates the loops (i.e. more sunspots in the N hemisphere means more toroidal loops dragged about by the N hemisphere of the radiative zone which is an asymmetrical force on the radiative zone) on edit: I did find more papers with new words like "kinetic helicity density", "vorticity", and "enstrophy". gong.nso.edu/gallery/disk2k10/data/2005/spd2k5/rk43_04.pdfThere is probably newer stuff out there. |
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Mar 1, 2013 10:59:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 1, 2013 14:15:49 GMT
The third belt is transitory and not a permanent feature. What I have learned from this discovery is that our environment is complex. Particles injected into the environment can stay there for a while because the can bounce back and forth between hemispheres following the field lines. Since the discovery is so new, we don't know much about this particular population, so there will be more to learn. |
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Mar 2, 2013 7:51:50 GMT
Thanks Dr.! Wonderful and most interesting new discovery times ahead...
|
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Mar 6, 2013 17:33:29 GMT
Good morning Dr. Svalgaard
I have read a number of articles in the past couple of days talking about the possibility for another "double" peak solar max. It is my understanding that in the past the double peaks have been caused by the northern and southern hemispheres peaking at different times. Of course in the current cycle much of the "activity" (sunspots, flares, etc) do date has been in the north. If this was true, then the next peak of activity will be from southern hemisphere action.
However, the solar butterfly diagram shape is created by sunspots marching toward the equator as the cycle progresses, Of course there are always spots that do no conform, but most of the sunspots appear at predictable latitudes as the cycle progresses. I took a look at the current butterfly diagram, and while early sunspot positions did appear to support this, the most current round of activity in the south was much farther north.
With this in mind, and of course it being very early to draw conclusions, do think that activity will pick up in the south, or is there a possibility that there will not be another peak in activity this cycle, and we will observe a long slow decline to the minimum?
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 8, 2013 5:29:52 GMT
Good morning Dr. Svalgaard I have read a number of articles in the past couple of days talking about the possibility for another "double" peak solar max. It is my understanding that in the past the double peaks have been caused by the northern and southern hemispheres peaking at different times. Of course in the current cycle much of the "activity" (sunspots, flares, etc) do date has been in the north. If this was true, then the next peak of activity will be from southern hemisphere action. However, the solar butterfly diagram shape is created by sunspots marching toward the equator as the cycle progresses, Of course there are always spots that do no conform, but most of the sunspots appear at predictable latitudes as the cycle progresses. I took a look at the current butterfly diagram, and while early sunspot positions did appear to support this, the most current round of activity in the south was much farther north. With this in mind, and of course it being very early to draw conclusions, do think that activity will pick up in the south, or is there a possibility that there will not be another peak in activity this cycle, and we will observe a long slow decline to the minimum? I think there will be increased activity in the South, like in cycle 14 |
|
timb
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by timb on Mar 8, 2013 23:41:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by chickenlittle on Mar 11, 2013 20:48:29 GMT
Here's my try at posting my graph of the separate Northern Hemisphere / Southern hemisphere sunspot data:  |
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Mar 29, 2013 12:43:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Mar 29, 2013 18:37:05 GMT
The sun has determines the temperature of the thermosphere. This is not hard to do as the air density is very low up there (a billion less than at the surface) so the energetic particles and extreme ultraviolet and x-ray emission absorbed up there have a large effect. These rays do not penetrate to the ground.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doug Huffman on Mar 30, 2013 11:44:12 GMT
I suspect that much controversy is due to the common misunderstanding of the relationship between heat as thermal energy and temperature function of temperature coefficient.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 1, 2013 3:22:15 GMT
Dr. Svalgaard:
Is that satellite still in storage that could provide more useful information in regards to what is happening on the Sun?
|
|
. It would be nice to propagate the asymmetry to the interface that generates the loops (i.e. more sunspots in the N hemisphere means more toroidal loops dragged about by the N hemisphere of the radiative zone which is an asymmetrical force on the radiative zone)
