Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Yesterday
  2. This metric, as currently written, will be violated, unless there is a substantial increase in sunspot activity by the end of Sept 2019. If there is not, then Solar Minimum (per determination by the averaging explained here) will not happen earlier than March 2019.
  3. Last week
  4. This document looks at some magnetic field structures on the surface of the sun that persisted for multiple solar rotations during this current solar minimum period. PFSS descriptive text(source). --------------------- ------- --------------------- Source of imagery in following animations. Features that stand out persistently (depicted in the next image) between rotations are: large 'open areas' of opposing magnetic polarity; consistent field line angles between the 'open areas'. --------------------- ------- --------------------- Case 1 animation: 5/26/18 through 01/23/19; Nine Rotations: START, Rotation 0, 5/26/18; Rotation 1, 6/22/18; Rotation 2, 7/19/18; Rotation 3, 8/15/18; Rotation 4, 9/11/18; Rotation 5, 10/08/18; Rotation 6, 11/04/18; Rotation 7, 12/01/18; Rotation 8, 12/27/18; Rotation 9, 01/23/19. In the above animation, the large magnetic structure that had repeated for eight rotations was broken and dispersed by Rotation 9, when other magnetic structure took predominance.
  5. Cosmic rays (particles) travel back to the sun along magnetic field lines: Voyager Satellites Find Magnetic Bubbles at Edge of Solar System.
  6. Images are first shown with 'default perspective' at various zooms, then with earth clocked to 6-o'clock position at various zooms. (Reference List of Solar Cycles.) Here is Mercury's perihelion and aphelion (the "line of apsides") position in all 'default perspective' images: --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- Solar Cycle 1 Minimum --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- Solar Cycle 1 Maximum (notes, J/S conjuction, but U too)
  7. And that specific 'modulation-of-flux event' is discussed in the thread titled, Stochastic influence on solar cycle activity: planetary clocking?
  8. Figure of Perseid meteor shower(source). In the above paper citation, was Professor Schuster possibly alluding to his personal observation of meteors, comets, and asteroids that seemed to have a waxing and waning synchronicity with the solar cycle? There is a cyclical flux of intergalactic material entering the solar system with the cyclical shrinking and swelling of the heliosphere. I'll try to find a reference for the amount of Galactic Cosmic Rays (discussed in this thread) that enter earth's atmosphere daily. Just the amount of meteoric material that falls on earth daily is 48.5 tons (44,000 kilograms), Meteors & Meteorites. Prof. Schuster was a contemporary of Theodor Wulf, who in 1909, "developed an electrometer, a device to measure the rate of ion production inside a hermetically sealed container, and used it to show higher levels of radiation at the top of the Eiffel Tower than at its base." (source).
  9. Earlier
  10. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsta.1906.0016 🤩
  11. In addition, consider that if planetary positioning has been suppressing sunspot activity in recent years, then possibly this suppressing activity has 'turned-the corner', per discussion in this thread.
  12. "Something" is affecting solar magnetic field structure, such that less sunspots are being generated ("Say Goodbye to Sunspots?"), over a decadal-scale time period. "Something" suppressed sunspot activity ~360 years ago (during the Maunder Minimum). Planetary clocked positioning repeats every ~360 years (positioning comparison with Maunder Minimum is discussed in this thread). Can we thus posit that planetary positioning is the "something" that is affecting the solar magnetic field structure which suppressed sunspot activity in SC24, and might possibly do so, at least to some extent, in SC25? --------------------- Per the following graph (source), maybe the affect of "something's" suppressing affect on solar magnetic field structure has 'turned-the-corner' so to speak, and consequently, the suppressing affect in SC25 will not be as great as it was in SC24? Above figure is from Leif Svalgaard's Research Page, (Livingston and Penn.png).
  13. However, as a counterpoint, something else to consider is where the timing of the sun's dynamo falls in relation to the planetary positioning. ~180 years ago, the Saturn/Jupiter conjunction happened 1.4 yrs before the "Start" of SC9, so that when SC9 started, Jupiter had a decent angular advancement away from Saturn: The Jupiter/Saturn conjunction in SC25 does not happen until December 2020, and it will be almost 2.5 years from now (in January 2022) before the angular advancement of Jupiter beyond Saturn is similar to what it was at the start of SC9: The above statement needs clarification. Absolutely, our current planetary positioning is similar (not exact) to what happened ~360 years ago. Where the planetary positioning falls in relation to the phasing of the solar dynamo could possibly affect, maybe significantly, the consequent solar activity of the cycle. However, I wish to separate the idea of solar activity ~360 years ago from the climatic conditions ~360 years ago. There is a lot of scientific evidence to suggest that the 'Little Ice Age' started long before the Maunder Minimum, and volcanic activity may have been one significant contributor to causing cold conditions in the 'Little Ice Age'.
  14. Below are images of the solar disk when it was facing earth 19-20 days earlier than the "puff" and "stealthy CME", showing the area(s) back then, from which they eventually manifested. The images above show many bridged magnetic field Coronal Loops, from which 'stalks' can manifest from their top, or 'fast solar wind' adjacent to their bridge points down on the Photosphere. (image source) In the following STEREO-A imagery of the area(s) of interest, days prior to positioning for the "puff" and "stealthy CME", we can observe streamers, fast solar wind and stalks directed to the left, in the direction of Mars and Venus. The animation covers the period Aug. 1 thru Aug. 12. The intensity of matter blown to the left increases and then decreases from the beginning to the end of the animation; the highest intensity appears to be during Aug. 8 thru Aug. 10. From here we read, "CMEs are frequently (but not always) associated with solar flares. These eruptions occur when large, looming coronal loops or filaments (gases trapped by magnetic fields, a bit like iron filings) are buffeted or disturbed in some way. This causes the whole loop system to become unstable, so the trapped material can burst free, dragging some of the magnetic field with it." In conclusion, we posit: As the areas of interest came around to the east solar side, they no longer had the strong magnetic connection experienced earlier with Venus and/or Mars, so gasses--previously being steadily released--instead built up under the coronal loop magnetic fields, to the point of an eventual more dynamic, spontaneous (explosive) release (i.e., ejection).
  15. Actually, a pretty good "puff" was 'tossed' that direction on ~8/9/19, 3 days prior to the "stealthy CME":
  16. In this document we 'toss' out some ideas pertaining to the evolution of the "Stealthy CME" that occurred on 8/12/19-8/13/19. (source) (source)
  17. Other factors to consider: Interplanetary Shocks observed by the SOHO Proton Monitor
  18. Although the the wavy red lines in the above figures are somewhat inspired by Parker's famous paper, they are a 2D representation of the 3D heliospheric current sheet model, where the planetary positions fall at nodal points. Figure from Parker's famous paper. During this time period, did the transit of Mercury perturb the heliospheric current sheet setup, and in effect, contribute to the TRIGGER ALERT perturbations?
  19. Was the following (circled in blue) an eventual response to the particular type of disruptions revealed by the TRIGGER ALERTs in Aug-Sept, 2017?:(source). Below is the suggested heliospheric current sheet setup, for the outer gas giants (neglecting the detail of the inner solar system), going into the time period of those particular type of disruptions:
  20. Data for the following graphs is the SORCE Total Solar Irradiance - Six Hour Average, Time Series. [Clicking on the graphs may provide a sharper image.] The data has been smoothed. There is not enough historical data to draw any solid conclusions. However, if indeed the 'Bremen Metric' (discussed in this thread and this thread) holds, then the following conclusions can be drawn for the 12-month window centered around the (tentative) SC24/25 Solar Minimum, when comparing to the SC23/24 Solar Minimum: the TSI 'based' at a much higher level; the TSI did not get 'squelched' (squeezed down) as much (i.e, the windowed data had a much greater deviation from its average over the duration of the 12-month window period).
  21. What follows is an inspection of all the solar minimum periods since inception of the F10.7cm. First, we plot the raw data for all cycles: The next plot is all of the data after simple smoothing. The plots that follow are a three-year window of each solar cycle’s minimum period; both raw data and smoothed data are plotted for each cycle. It is quite apparent from the graphs that SC23/24, and the beginnings of SC24/25, are dramatically lower in 10.7cm Flux than the earlier cycles. If the 'Bremen Metric' holds up, and 'Breakout' occurs in or before early 2020, then the SC 24/25 minimum period will have been more 'energetic' (i.e., registering more microwave radio energy), on average, than the SC 23/24 period. Conversely, if the 'Bremen Metric' breaks down, the SC 24/25 minimum period could eventually be less 'energetic', on average overall, than the SC 23/24 period. We should have a pretty good idea, either way, within 3-4 months from now.
  22. Presented below are two potential F10.7cm scenarios for the remaining SC 24/25 minimum period. In Scenario (A), the 'Bremen Metric' is not violated, and 'Breakout' occurs by early 2020. Scenario (A) shown (for the F10.7cm) is comparable to Scenario (A) shown in this thread (for the Mg II Composite). Scenario (C) is an example case of the 'The Panel' prediction (discussed in this thread). Note the projected F10.7cm in Scenario (C) is very similar to what actually occurred eleven years ago for SC 23/24. The Tentative Solar Minimum in this scenario occurs at a date earlier than shown for Scenario (B) in this thread.
  23. Source of Raw Data for the following graphs. [Clicking on the graphs may provide a sharper image.] If the adjusted_flux goes below the 'line of lows' after the Crossover (to occur on ~10/1/2019), then the 'Bremen Metric' will most likely be violated. Conversely, if the adjusted_flux does not go below the 'line of lows' by mid-November, then the 'Bremen Metric' will most likely be confirmed. (Note, the 'Bremen Metric' is discussed in this thread and this thread.)
  24. That is the planet Venus.
  25. what is that bright light in top right quadrant of images and last 48 hour gif? moving bright light? https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/solar-images/soho
  26. Even though the Bremen MgII Composite indicates it potentially has bottomed and is headed up into SC25, the LymanAlpha Composite is showing no such indication. Indeed, that data set is currently near its lowest values since its start in 1947.
  27. Plotted on the same graph below are the LymanAlpha Composite(source) and Bremen MgII Composite(source). Both sets of raw data have been smoothed with a 55-day moving-window-average. Just the smoothed data of both sets are plotted below.
  1. Load more activity
  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?
    Sign Up
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you also agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.