Questions for Dr. L Svalgaard ---- II

[lsvalgaard]

Jun 19, 2011 21:00:52 GMT justsomeguy said:

Very neat video, is that same sunspot shown here? 1158. Also thoughts on why all the positive and negative do not congregate together? Are paths of negative "blocked" by positive, or some other mechanism?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSX9DUV6KmM

Yes, the same. The difference is that the colored one shows the so-called Vector Field, i.e. the strength AND direction of the field. The black-n-white shows the magnitude of the field directed along our line of sight to the spot.
I don't quite understand your question about 'congregate' together.

[justsomeguy]

I am not sure quite how to put it, but the sunspot seems to start as a series of small spots that come together to make a bigger spot. Is that true or an optical illusion? If true, do the spots come together on some basis, e.g. polarity.

[lsvalgaard]

Jun 20, 2011 16:16:30 GMT justsomeguy said:

I am not sure quite how to put it, but the sunspot seems to start as a series of small spots that come together to make a bigger spot. Is that true or an optical illusion? If true, do the spots come together on some basis, e.g. polarity.

Yes, you impression is true. The general rule is that like polarity assembles with like polarity [the opposite of the naive: opposites attract]. The physical reason is not totally clear, but is likely to be that nature likes a minimum energy configuration, and pulling two opposite polarities apart requires energy that you are then putting into the configuration.

[justsomeguy]

Good, at least I am not hallucinating.

So back to my first point, it looks to me as if the opposite polarities do a very good job of "finding" one another early in your video representation, but near the end it seems some of the blue (negative?) areas are isolated from the larger blue sunspot by a wall of congregating red (positive?) polarity spots. It seems in other videos I have seen, or maybe it was even was on the 1158 SDO movies a few months back, that the solar flares seem to be initiating from the region near where the blue area of spots was "trapped". It might seem plausible that these areas would be more unstable as the opposite polarities try to move past each other and interact.

Plausible or not?

[lsvalgaard]

Jun 20, 2011 18:44:09 GMT justsomeguy said:

Good, at least I am not hallucinating.

So back to my first point, it looks to me as if the opposite polarities do a very good job of "finding" one another early in your video representation, but near the end it seems some of the blue (negative?) areas are isolated from the larger blue sunspot by a wall of congregating red (positive?) polarity spots. It seems in other videos I have seen, or maybe it was even was on the 1158 SDO movies a few months back, that the solar flares seem to be initiating from the region near where the blue area of spots was "trapped". It might seem plausible that these areas would be more unstable as the opposite polarities try to move past each other and interact.

Plausible or not?

not only plausible. that is the way it works. Flares happen near boundaries between blue and red where the movement of the plasma is still pressing them together or shearing them by moving sideways.

[jamesjjlm]

Hi Dr. Svalgaard,

I had a question come up where someone referred to a video stating the reason for the low sunspot activity is the sunspots changing polarity and "the polar speeds reversing". It then goes on to say the magnetic field that is responsible for the formation of sunspots and the magnetic field of the sunspots has declined from 2700 Gauss to 2000 Gauss, and claims that by the end of next year that the the field strength will be so low they can can "easily reverse". "In other words a dramatic switch in the magnetic field of the sun will create thousands of sunspots and produce a killer flare." Then, it states that "the magnetic field of the sunspots will reverse, and normally this happens at the beginning of a cycle but this time it is going to happen in the middle of a cycle".

Now I am pretty sure this is mostly nonsense, but it raised a question for me that I haven't been able to find from a reliable source. What is the correlation between the strength of the sunspot magnetic fields, with the intensity of solar flare/CME activity. Since it is currently declining, wouldn't that mean less solar flares/CME's, or at the very least, weaker explosions?

[lsvalgaard]

Jun 20, 2011 19:57:46 GMT jamesjjlm said:

Hi Dr. Svalgaard,

I had a question come up where someone referred to a video stating the reason for the low sunspot activity is the sunspots changing polarity and "the polar speeds reversing". It then goes on to say the magnetic field that is responsible for the formation of sunspots and the magnetic field of the sunspots has declined from 2700 Gauss to 2000 Gauss, and claims that by the end of next year that the the field strength will be so low they can can "easily reverse". "In other words a dramatic switch in the magnetic field of the sun will create thousands of sunspots and produce a killer flare." Then, it states that "the magnetic field of the sunspots will reverse, and normally this happens at the beginning of a cycle but this time it is going to happen in the middle of a cycle".

Now I am pretty sure this is mostly nonsense, but it raised a question for me that I haven't been able to find from a reliable source. What is the correlation between the strength of the sunspot magnetic fields, with the intensity of solar flare/CME activity. Since it is currently declining, wouldn't that mean less solar flares/CME's, or at the very least, weaker explosions?

The information you were given was somewhat muddled. The fact is that the sunspots are getting weaker and therefore their CMEs etc are also getting weaker. The solar North pole has lost it magnetic field but will get an new one later this year. The South will reverse perhaps early next year. These reversals are a normal part of the solar cycle and no reason for alarm.

[vukcevic]

Reversal of the polar fields has currently come to a halt.
www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm

[jamesjjlm]

Thank you.
Yeah the guy who is saying that stuff think he knows everything about the sun.

So by this time next year, it is likely that the polar field will have reversed already? Does that indicate there will be a decline in solar activity from that point, or does the polar field reversal not actually have anything to do with the maximum?

Reversal of the polar fields has currently come to a halt.
www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm

Whats this indicate?

(I am asking these questions because I am interested in learning, not paranoid. I also enjoy helping those who ARE alarmed/scared, since the next year and a half there is probably going be a lot fear-mongering going on.)

[justsomeguy]

I am not that guy, but will attempt to answer what I think you are asking.

The reversal of the polar fields does tend to occur near the maxima, thus sunspots would reduce around the same time. That said, we have the quietest sun during a solar cycle in several hundred years thus I would not be very worried about flares or Carrington events this time round.

[vukcevic]

Whats this indicate?

Not much, happens often.

[justsomeguy]

Here is a description of the solar field reversal from a prior cycle, as vukcevic says, pretty normal:

science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast15feb_1/

[lsvalgaard]

Jun 21, 2011 20:55:53 GMT vukcevic said:

Whats this indicate?

Not much, happens often.

Perhaps Vuk could stay out of this thread unless he has a question for me. Lots of other threads to pollute.

[elbuho]

Thanks for answering my question. And also thanks to the last answer. ;D

[justsomeguy]

This paper seems to make entry into the Maunder look very similar to solar cycle 24. Comments?

iopscience.iop.org/2041-8205/731/2/L24