Questions for Dr. L Svalgaard

[bradk]

What is wrong wih this thread? Is ti showing up in columns for anyone else?

Dr. Svalgaard-

Since this week has been about X-rays and photons and CMEs, can you describe what effect L & P, or lowered magentism per spot, are expected to have on these events and the frquency/strength?

[lsvalgaard]

Feb 19, 2011 11:45:54 GMT bradk said:

What is wrong wih this thread? Is ti showing up in columns for anyone else?

Dr. Svalgaard-

Since this week has been about X-rays and photons and CMEs, can you describe what effect L & P, or lowered magentism per spot, are expected to have on these events and the frquency/strength?

Since we have never had an L&P effect before [except the Maunder Minimum] it is hard to say. I general, the strength of these events is not expected to vary as they are determined by local conditions [the breaking point of the system].

[skypilot]

Dr. Leif,

What do you expect as a representation of the L & P effect in relation to a dramatically lower sunspot number and the SFI index, as the sunspots wane and /or disappear visually.

Thanks, Skypilot

[lsvalgaard]

Feb 20, 2011 17:18:37 GMT skypilot said:

Dr. Leif,

What do you expect as a representation of the L & P effect in relation to a dramatically lower sunspot number and the SFI index, as the sunspots wane and /or disappear visually.

Thanks, Skypilot

Perhaps the clearest is this plot:

That shows the ratio between the observed sunspot number [that is: sunspots we can see] and a sunspot number calculated from the SFI. That ratio should be about 1. Fluctuating a lot at solar minimum where both counts are very low, but otherwise showing the characteristic decline during S23 and continuing into SC24.

[france]

Dr Svalgaard, is it true solar matter on pole doesn't go away and fall again on the sun ?

[lsvalgaard]

Feb 20, 2011 18:59:38 GMT france said:

Dr Svalgaard, is it true solar matter on pole doesn't go away and fall again on the sun ?

What leaves the Sun doesn't fall back on it as it must already have exceeded the escape velocity to leave in the first place. There are some insignificant exceptions: e.g. a proton might impact on a dust grain and get stuck there, then the dust grain slowly spirals into the sun [as they do].

[france]

Feb 20, 2011 20:20:30 GMT lsvalgaard said:

Feb 20, 2011 18:59:38 GMT france said:

Dr Svalgaard, is it true solar matter on pole doesn't go away and fall again on the sun ?

What leaves the Sun doesn't fall back on it as it must already have exceeded the escape velocity to leave in the first place. There are some insignificant exceptions: e.g. a proton might impact on a dust grain and get stuck there, then the dust grain slowly spirals into the sun [as they do].

ok, so that can happen on poles or anywhere else ?
I read somethink like on poles velocity is lower than equator and doesn't allow the ejection out of corona like it does on equator.
What causes spirals you evocate ? Centripetal force ?

[lsvalgaard]

Feb 20, 2011 21:11:32 GMT france said:

Feb 20, 2011 20:20:30 GMT lsvalgaard said:

What leaves the Sun doesn't fall back on it as it must already have exceeded the escape velocity to leave in the first place. There are some insignificant exceptions: e.g. a proton might impact on a dust grain and get stuck there, then the dust grain slowly spirals into the sun [as they do].

ok, so that can happen on poles or anywhere else ?
I read somethink like on poles velocity is lower than equator and doesn't allow the ejection out of corona like it does on equator.
What causes spirals you evocate ? Centripetal force ?

The solar wind is twice as fast over the poles during most of the solar cycle as over the equator.
The solar wind is radial. No spiral. The magnetic field is a spiral because the foot point of the field line on the Sun keeps rotating underneath the wind, e.g. www.phy6.org/stargaze/Fsimfproj.htm or
www.phy6.org/stargaze/Simfproj.htm

[sigurdur]

Prof Svalgaard:
I don't post on this forum as I am not well enough educated to make informed remarks. With that said, I sure do appreciate you taking the time to post here. Such knowledge.
Thank you so very much.

[lsvalgaard]

Feb 20, 2011 22:29:38 GMT sigurdur said:

Prof Svalgaard:
I don't post on this forum as I am not well enough educated to make informed remarks. With that said, I sure do appreciate you taking the time to post here. Such knowledge.
Thank you so very much.

A layman's curiosity and willingness to learn are precious things. Keep asking and learning.

[solarlux]

Dr. Svalgaard,

Any comments on the approach of predicting future SC intensity using geomagnetic activity as an indicator? Is SC24 exceptional in the breakdown of this trend?

Reference science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/21dec_cycle24/

[lsvalgaard]

Feb 24, 2011 19:01:48 GMT solarlux said:

Dr. Svalgaard,

Any comments on the approach of predicting future SC intensity using geomagnetic activity as an indicator? Is SC24 exceptional in the breakdown of this trend?

Reference science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/21dec_cycle24/

see slides 24-26 of www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle%20(SORCE%202010).pdf

[arjan]

Hey Doc. First of all i really like your online activity. There's so much realtime data but so littlle realltime opinions. You said somewhere on this forum that "looking at the polarity of the spots", 11158, the X flare would not cause a big storm. Later you posted if the eruption would have happened in the northern hemissphere it would have had a much bigger impact.
(opposite polarity in the group?)
How does this work?
I attached this picture from solen, blue is possitive. HMII and HMIB. i drew a red line where i think the action was.
My first thought is that it's opposing the earths's polarity and would nicely connect to the earth's magnetosphere.
appearantly that's not the case.
What's going on? Is the ejecta of opposite polarity because of what happens in the magnetic reconnection?
Or i could be missing something completely ofcourse.

Attachments:

[lsvalgaard]

Feb 26, 2011 2:24:12 GMT arjan said:

Hey Doc. First of all i really like your online activity. There's so much realtime data but so littlle realltime opinions. You said somewhere on this forum that "looking at the polarity of the spots", 11158, the X flare would not cause a big storm. Later you posted if the eruption would have happened in the northern hemissphere it would have had a much bigger impact.
(opposite polarity in the group?)
How does this work?
I attached this picture from solen, blue is possitive. HMII and HMIB. i drew a red line where i think the action was.
My first thought is that it's opposing the earths's polarity and would nicely connect to the earth's magnetosphere.
appearantly that's not the case.
What's going on? Is the ejecta of opposite polarity because of what happens in the magnetic reconnection?
Or i could be missing something completely ofcourse.

So the CME that leaves the Sun will have field going from blue across the red line [that is northward]. The Earth's field [from pole to pole] is actually pointing south, but because the field lines from that dipole have to return to the Earth, they will point North near the equator. Reconnection happens between oppositely directed field, so when this CME hits the Earth it will not reconnect very well. Here is a schematic:



The numbers 1, 2, 3 refer to the CME in flight.

[france]

Dr Svalgaard I was wrong, the wind is faster and matter different on poles according Ulysses records
space.umd.edu/iacg_c4/c4_news.html

Ulysses has verified global differences in the speed
of the wind flowing out from the Sun at different latitudes.
Most notably, solar winds at high southern latitudes traveled
at roughly double the speed found in the equatorial zone. The
solar winds flow at approximately two million miles per hour
(800 kilometers per second) at high southern latitudes, while
dropping in velocity to about one million miles per hour (400
kilometers) near the equator.

* As the spacecraft approached the equator, the solar
wind continued to be very fast until around 20 degrees south
latitude, at which time an abrupt transition to the low-speed,
low-latitude solar wind was seen. Large variations in the
solar wind speed and other properties then continued until the
spacecraft reached 20 degrees north latitude, at which time
only the fast solar wind was again observed continuously.

* The loss of material from the Sun over the south
pole, caused by the flow of the solar wind, is roughly one
million tons per second. This matter consists of hydrogen,
helium and a small fraction of metals and heavy atoms.
Results of the southern pass also revealed the outward
pressure of the solar wind to be much greater over the pole
than it is around the equator. As a consequence, the shape of
the heliosphere -- that region of space dominated by solar
particles and electromagnetic fields -- may be elongated in
the polar direction, extending much farther out into
interstellar space than it does near the equator.

Plasma waves -- electrical and magnetic fields that
result from unstable distributions in the particles making up
the solar wind -- play a role in regulating the behavior of
solar wind particles and were expected to be found at nearly
identical levels in both hemispheres of the Sun. However, as
Ulysses crossed the Sun's equator and entered the northern
hemisphere, observations revealed significantly higher levels
of several varieties of plasma waves in the northern region of
the Sun, compared to their presence in the southern
hemisphere. The cause of this asymmetry is not yet
understood, but plasma wave measurements will continue to be
used as a diagnostic tool for studying the local properties of
the solar wind along the spacecraft's trajectory