Motions in the sun reveal inner workings of sunspot cycle

Posted: June 27, 2020 by oldbrew in Cycles, research, Solar physics
Tags: ,

Ionized gas inside the Sun moves toward the poles near the surface and toward the equator at the base of the convection zone (at a depth of 200,000 km/125,000 miles).
Credit: MPS (Z.-C. Liang)


The title of the study cited in this report gives us the clue: ‘Meridional flow in the Sun’s convection zone is a single cell in each hemisphere’. The full cycle takes about 22 years on average, with a magnetic reversal halfway through.
– – –
The sun’s magnetic activity follows an 11-year cycle. Over the course of a solar cycle, the sun’s magnetic activity comes and goes, says Phys.org.

During solar maximum, large sunspots and active regions appear on the sun’s surface. Spectacular loops of hot plasma stretch throughout the sun’s atmosphere and eruptions of particles and radiation shoot into interplanetary space.

During solar minimum, the sun calms down considerably. A striking regularity appears in the so-called butterfly diagram, which describes the position of sunspots in a time-latitude plot.

At the beginning of a solar cycle, sunspots emerge at mid-latitudes. As the cycle progresses, they emerge closer and closer to the equator. To explain this “butterfly diagram,” solar physicists suspect that the deep magnetic field is carried toward the equator by a large-scale flow.

“Over the course of a solar cycle, the meridional flow acts as a conveyor belt that drags the magnetic field along and sets the period of the solar cycle,” says Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon, MPS Director and first author of the new study.

“Seeing the geometry and the amplitude of motions in the solar interior is essential to understanding the sun’s magnetic field,” he adds.

To this end, Gizon and his team used helioseismology to map the plasma flow below the sun’s surface.

Helioseismology is to solar physics what seismology is to geophysics. Helioseismologists use sound waves to probe the sun’s interior, in much the same way geophysicists use earthquakes to probe the interior of the Earth.

Solar sound waves have periods near five minutes and are continuously excited by near surface convection. The motions associated with solar sound waves can be measured at the sun’s surface by telescopes on spacecrafts or on the ground.

In this study, Gizon and his team used observations of sound waves at the surface that propagate in the north-south direction through the solar interior. These waves are perturbed by the meridional flow: they travel faster along the flow than against the flow.

These very small travel-time perturbations (less than 1 second) were measured very carefully and were interpreted to infer the meridional flow using mathematical modeling and computers.

Full article here.

Comments
  1. Chaswarnertoo says:

    And? Anyone?

  2. oldbrew says:

    “It remains to be understood why the solar meridional flow looks like it does”

    More work to do.

  3. tallbloke says:

    “Remarkably, the time taken for the plasma to complete the loop is approximately 22 years—and this provides the physical explanation for the sun’s eleven-year cycle.Furthermore, sunspots emerge closer to the equator as the solar cycle progresses, as is seen in the butterfly diagram.”

    The region at higher latitudes where new-cycle sunspots appear takes ~11 years to get near the equator and then ‘subducts’ and returns to higher latitude at depth, while another wave of sunspots moves from higher latitude equatorwards. But since there’s no mechanism offered as to why the loop carries these two discrete waves of sunspot producing plasma, the claim that a ‘physical explanation’ has been provided looks a bit strong. Where’s the meat?

  4. JB says:

    “The motions associated with solar sound waves can be measured at the sun’s surface by telescopes on spacecrafts or on the ground.” They know that these waves are “sound” and not just waves propagating at the “speed of sound?”

    So where is the vibrating mechanism that produces this “sound” wave?

  5. oldbrew says:

    Solar cycle lengths vary, so the flow rate must be varying all the time. This is problem #1.

  6. P.A.Semi says:

    The sunspots are appearing at lower and lower latitudes during the cycle, but the surface flow really is poleward during whole cycle…
    Maximum average poleward flow is about 0.45 °/day at cca 50° latitude…

    Relative to Carrington (almost) rotation, average flow, and difference from average flow:

    ( http://semi.gurroa.cz/Astro/Flow/ )

    I’ll need to update it with more recent data…

    On http://pialpha.cz/Sun/#maps there are two videos of 360×180 rectangular projection of SC24 (SDO) and SC23 (SDO), those gray rectangles with yellow and green smudges, one frame per day with far side interpolated, and the surface flow and differential rotation is clearly visible on them… (The part moving right to left that seems boiling is what is observed, and the rest which iridescently transforms is calculated “far side” of the Sun…) You may notice, how each sunspot group, especially in higher latitudes, moves poleward and then significantly leftward, where the rotation is slower, and the gray space between sunspots moves poleward and then leftward also…

    All the SDO and SOHO and Stereo images are rotated by cca 0.12° relative to true solar north pole, which makes a yearly zebra-like pattern on the charts, as it seems flowing upward and downward during Earth’s orbit. I tried what I could to eliminate that, but as producing these charts takes about 12-18 hours on 8 processors, until the average is visible, it is hard to tune parameters of that rotation by successive trials… (8 years of data in hourly stepping means to process cca 70,000 magnetograms, now with 10 years it would be even more, it cannot use 3-hour stepping and processing single year is not enough for averaging out noise…)

    Once I thought it could be a real effect of planet Earth onto Sun, but when processing similar calculation from Stereo A and B images (euvi 304), they also produce this zebra-like pattern, but it is offseted in the year as the spacecrafts are on different sides of the Sun, so that Earth-yearly vibration is not a physical effect, but a matter of turned Solar north/south poles… (As if looking onto spinning globe from side, all moves in X rightward and no move in Y. If the spinning globe poles are turned onto 11o’clock and 5o’clock, everything in Y moves upward, and if the poles are on 1o’clock and 7o’clock, everything in Y moves downward, beside moving in X rightward… So as you orbit that globe, it produces zebra-like pattern in Y moving half year up and then half year down, producing a sinusoid…)

    Once I tried to ask JSOC about the parameters of that rotation and whether they know it, and they replied, that they know about it, but for the matter of tradition and stability of data they maintain original Carrington rotation parameters – which have admirable precision being only 0.12° off, if it was calculated sometimes in 19th century… (And they’ve sent me a link to some PDF, which deals with that, trying to measure it more exactly and listing results of other works using different methods to measure that, but I don’t know how to use that to turn the images right…)

  7. P.A.Semi says:

    Correction: SC24 (SDO) and SC23 (SOHO) …

    A note – it has a symmetric average subtracted… Southern hemisphere was turning faster than northern, that is why south X is red and north X is blue on a difference from symmetric average…

    Also notable is the “kick” probably by a significant combined planet oppositions at second half of 2017, when there was Jupiter+Mercury — Uranus opposition at 2017-07-11 combined with Earth+Pluto — Mars opposition, an almost cross shape (84° Earth-Jupiter), with Jupiter-Saturn angle almost 60° and Neptune-Jupiter 137° (golden angle)… And it coincided with a sharp peak in magnetic activity…

  8. oldbrew says:

    Meridional flow in the Sun’s convection zone is a single cell in each hemisphere
    Science 26 Jun 2020

    Abstract
    The Sun’s magnetic field is generated by subsurface motions of the convecting plasma. The latitude at which the magnetic field emerges through the solar surface (as sunspots) drifts toward the equator over the course of the 11-year solar cycle. We use helioseismology to infer the meridional flow (in the latitudinal and radial directions) over two solar cycles covering 1996–2019. Two data sources are used, which agree during their overlap period of 2001–2011. The time-averaged meridional flow is shown to be a single cell in each hemisphere, carrying plasma toward the equator at the base of the convection zone with a speed of ~4 meters per second at 45° latitude. Our results support the flux-transport dynamo model, which explains the drift of sunspot-emergence latitudes through the meridional flow. [bold added]

    https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6498/1469

    Flux transport dynamos
    – Dr. Paul Charbonneau [2007]

    Their two primary defining features are:
    — the observed equatorward migration of sunspot source regions and poleward migration of surface fields are both driven by the “conveyor belt” action of the meridional flow;
    — the cycle period is primarily set by the meridional flow speed.

    http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Flux_transport_dynamos

    Of course like models generally, there are unresolved problems and that is admitted.

  9. Paul Vaughan says:

    100% perfect discovery of “physical mechanism” (a phrase from a bygone era that presently means nothing given how savagely the context has changed) wouldn’t change a thing about anything, but the observations highlighted by the study are delightful — not surprising in the least but delightful nonetheless.

    Every time I hear “physics” or “mechanism” now this abusive missage from MSM IMMEDIATELY comes to mind:

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2020/06/19/its-showyourstripes-day-folks-climate-realist-style/comment-page-1/#comment-158717

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2020/06/19/its-showyourstripes-day-folks-climate-realist-style/comment-page-1/#comment-158721

  10. P.A.Semi says:

    About cycle period and intensity, I’ll add these two, since last time it sunk too late in the thread:

    I’ve re-analyzed my chart from 2009 about Earth’s Angular Momentum related to 22-year signed Sunspot cycle:

    (It’s just another way to look at that Earth-Venus-Jupiter cycle, and here it better explains, why Mercury does not influence it much – because if it was Tidal, Mercury would play same role as Earth, but not if it it was Magnetic…)

    It well matches timing since 1600, including during and before Maunder minimum, just it does not explain the amplitude of that Maunder minimum. (Which I claim to be explained by thirty-years war outcome but you may ignore it now as too fantastic…)
    SC4 at 1785 was too early of the influence. It seemed, that SC24 in 2008 will start also too early of this influence, but both SC24 and SC25 are lingering in minimum to get in sync with this cycle…

    In my chart, there is “mid-point of short anomalies of Earth’s Angular Momentum relative to Sun”. There are normal long anomalies, which are ignored, and only the chaotic vibration in middle is used here…

    When that line makes incursion into opposite sign out of the cycle (marked by red circles), there is the cycle damaged and weak… (this note is new from this chart, since now it explains magnitudes of the cycles and not only their timing…)

    (The orange serie is: “Source: WDC-SILSO, Royal Observatory of Belgium, Brussels” – just with the sign manually negated in odd cycles…)

    A detail just to visually explain, what I mean by “mid-point of short anomalies of Earth’s Angular Momentum relative to Sun”:

    On top panel is the Earth’s Angular Momentum (olive color), and it can be seen, that there is a “short” vibration in middle with cca 22-year cycle, also visible in cycle of “long” vibrations… The bottom panels show, how is the “black” sparse serie selected from that chart and how it relates to signed sunspot cycle…

    Here it is presented with one possible(?) “Theory”, that it’s Earth’s Magnetic influence onto the Sun, and the vibration in Earth’s acceleration and deceleration on it’s orbit (mostly caused by Venus and Jupiter), that causes the Sunspot cycle, or that the Sunspot cycle is _intentionally_ tuned or synchronized with this Earth’s vibration. Each cycle starts to appear at cca 30-40° latitude, that is best synchronized with the 27-day “Earth Pulse” as Earth vibrates with Moon counterballance during it’s orbit in same rythm as Solar spin at that latitude… By my oppinion, this synchronized pulse of Earth’s orbit by Moon counterballance in rythm of Solar Spin may be a reason, why our Magnetosphere didn’t wane yet, as did on other small planets…

    It’s too good synchronization during last 400 years to be merely a random coincidence, and since J.P.Desmoulins initial discovery, two more cycles SC24 and SC25 seem to vindicate that claim… (But it may be yet another property of Earth-Venus-Jupiter cycle and claim it may be Earth’s magnetic influence is just a speculation…)
    But yet again I re-iterate, that if it was Tidal influence (as J.P.Desmoulins claimed), then it cannot omit Mercury, which is tidally onto Sun as important as Earth, but if it is added into that equation, this 22-year cycle isn’t there any more…

  11. tallbloke says:

    Semi: Here it is presented with one possible(?) “Theory”, that it’s Earth’s Magnetic influence onto the Sun, and the vibration in Earth’s acceleration and deceleration on it’s orbit (mostly caused by Venus and Jupiter), that causes the Sunspot cycle,

    Semi, as always, thank you for bringing excellent data resources and visualisations to the Talkshop.

    There is empirical support for your hypothesis from a surprising, and very old source.

    Annie Maunder, the wife of Walter Maunder, made observations of sunspots which revealed that more sunspots crossed the trailing limb of the Sun than were observed coming over the leading limb. The implication was that Earth is stimulating sunspot production. She did not speculate as to how that might happen.

    https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/57/5/5.21/2738841
    ” Its main results concern the detection of several east–west asymmetries in sunspot parameters, as viewed by an Earth observer, for which she could find no explanation. She states in her paper that the observations “must be laid to the account of some influence exercised by the Earth”, though she is careful to describe this as “an apparent influence”. She acknowledges the results to be completely unexpected and such an influence to be implausible, but it is the direction that the data leads her in as a scientist, and she honestly admits that “I have no speculations to offer as to the nature of this terrestrial influence upon the solar spot groups”.

    This modern paper confirms Annie Maunder’s findings, but claims to explain the East-West asymmetry as being due to asymmetry in the visibility of growing sunspots.

  12. P.A.Semi says:

    > more sunspots crossed the trailing limb of the Sun than were observed coming over the leading limb

    That would be nice… I’ve read that article, and the “modern paper” also… Thinking, why I didn’t think about it earlier ?

    The “count” may have an observer bias…

    So I tried with SDO data 2010/05 – 2020/02

    Sunspots on 2048×2048 HMIIF continuum intensitygrams, flat-fielded jpegs, summed in 5° bins relative to Earth position, minus on left side, plus on right side…
    Data is in regular 6-hour step (13951 files), projected onto 3600×1800 synoptic map with rectangular projection. Then SumArea is in 0.01 square degrees of solar surface and should not depend on position on visible Solar disc, except that pixels on side of sunspots (or 1-pixel sunspots) are interpolated among source pixels and get more dim near limb and may disappear above threshold…? Count is count of distinct spots…
    First row is Umbra below level 0.25, second row is Penumbra below level 0.5 on jpegs, all Umbra pixels are included in Penumbra also… Black line is count, gray line is symmetric average…

    Third and fourth rows are difference from that symmetric average. The side bins above 80° can be probably ignored… 1 degree of Central meridian 0° is excluded from both sides…

    Having bigger area and count at center may be probably a function of viewing angle, as described in their paper https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2008/07/aa8800-07.pdf … ? Or rather the dark areas are little below photosphere surface and when viewed from side, the sides around the sunspot shield viewing into the sunspot?
    Also, their minimum msh area (milionth of visible solar hemisphere) is 8, my minimum is theoretically 0.33 msh… (1 pixel on image with solar radius 967 pixels at perihelium?)

    Both area and count decreases from left to right. How does it relate to the “systematic inclination of the magnetic flux tubes” they describe ?

    Same with SOHO data 1996 – 2010 with irregular stepping, usually 1 daily, 4922 files total…

    Computes area as visible from Soho, not as projected onto maps, area is in square pixels on visible solar disc on 1024×1024 image… So the area is in different units than in charts above, producing data with a same method (projecting onto map) would take some time, maybe later…

    Here is an effect, that same Sunspot on side of visible disc is viewed smaller than in center… The data is more noisy but it very little grows from left to right… (in “count” it is about same level as noise on SDO images)

    So it is a question, how much it is a difference in projection, of image resolution and of spacecraft, and how much it is a difference of odd 23 or even 24 sunspot cycle…?

  13. P.A.Semi says:

    Few days ago I’ve published a very special paper http://pialpha.cz/SC25.pdf
    (Not sure, if it is a final version? Maybe there will be some update later…)

    Among else it lists all sunspots of SC25 polarity so far, including very tiny ones… (212 counted so far…) And it lists sunspots with “wrong” polarity (215 so far), which occured quite more often than at start of SC24…

    As formerly it seemed sunspots are appearing with relation to planet positions, this time almost all major of the sunspots so far appeared on christian holidays and calendary starts… Chance, that it is just a random coincidence, seems very small…

    That “paper” is something else, than what it seems at first sight… But it is also something else, than what it seems at second sight…

    If you know, what is a sunspot and sunspot cycle and how sunspot polarities differ, you can skip to page 6…
    (And as I know you rooted for UKIP here, read entries for 2018-12-30..31 and 2020-05-09 … From first page on bold link on right side in “Contents” box, then by calendary day, it’s two clicks to any date…)


    πα½

  14. Paul Vaughan says:

    Semi wrote “J.P.Desmoulins initial discovery”

    Don’t forget Clyde Bollinger 1952 was 44 years ahead.

    27.03 days and lunar draconic do tie exactly to Hale.

  15. Paul Vaughan says:

    As for all these circle-things on charts — as I said to GS long long ago — just derive the cycle algebraically. Just use discrete-continuous methods to ID the slip cycles. Then plot the phase difference and if you’re instinct is correct it’s long-run central limit will be zero.

    I waited 11 years to show GS the calculations.

  16. Paul Vaughan says:

    Clarification: Those calculations were for JS. Calculations for JEV are analogous.

  17. P.A.Semi says:

    Re: Paul Vaughan, …do tie exactly to Hale…, … just derive the cycle algebraically …
    Your algebraic approach is usually a huge pile of useless numbers without meaning.
    The “cycle” is not regular and cannot be aproximated by a single frequency “exactly”…
    Use your own methods as you like, I use different methods…

  18. P.A.Semi says:

    I retried the left-right symmetry with magnetograms instead of continuum intensitygrams.

    There are 8 items to symmetric average: left-right, north-south, positive-negative… (Negative field is taken in absolute value separately from positive field. Limited inside +-60° latitude… Summing values projected onto rectangular map… Horizontally only to 0.9 radius ie. +-64° longitude… One magnetogram daily if any is available…)

    From SDO/HMIB in SC24, 2010-05 .. 2020-05 (3681 days, 3 missing), and SOHO/MDI in SC23, 1996-04 .. 2011-04 (5133 days, 336 missing)
    SOHO with special noise-reduction, SDO with same noise-reduction for consistency although not needed, still SOHO has cca 2x larger values…

    It’s LOS (line-of-sight) magnetic field, so the more far from central meridian, the weaker it seems, if the field was radial from Solar center…

    There is probably no reason, that the field on right side (after Earth passage) should seem bigger, than on left side (before Earth passage)… (May that be some Doppler effect? Then it should be same on north and south hemispheres…)

    The magnetic field after Earth passing seems growing, most pronounced in South-Negative in SC23 and in South-Positive in SC24… (In SC24 southern hemisphere rotates faster, I don’t know now how it was in SC23, possibly also…)

    It would probably be needed to make separate charts before and after pole reversal in middle of cycle, or possibly each 2-3 years separate… (whole “years” to have viewpoint looking same part from north and from south during orbit, at least 2 or 3 years together to average out noise… Sometime later…)

  19. P.A.Semi says:

    And I’ll add one more chart bundle…

    Magnetic field on left and right halves of Solar disc, separate north/south and positive/negative, difference from symmetric average of all 8 parts (average calculated in each year separately), calculated on projection to a rectangular map until +-60° latitude, here it’s each year separately from 1st May to 30th April of next year… Year 2010 overlaps SOHO and SDO to compare them…

    Top left quadrant is North Positive, top right quadrant is North Negative, bottom left is South Positive, bottom right is South Negative…
    In each quadrant, top two rows are 15 years from SOHO, bottom row is 10 years from SDO…

    In cca 2003 and 2014 were pole reversals… (after 2003 north pole was negative and south pole was positive, after 2014 north pole was positive and south pole was negative)

    1996 to 1997 is minimum before SC23, 1998 to 2005 is active phase of SC23, 2006 to 2009 is minimum before SC24, 2010 to 2016 is active phase of SC24, 2017 to 2018 is minimum before SC25 and 2019 is already SC25 analogous to 1996 at start of SC23…

    In SC23, North Positive and South Negative were leading (right) side of sunspots…
    In SC24, North Negative and South Positive were leading (right) side of sunspots…
    Southern hemisphere rotates faster in SC24 and probably (unsure) also in SC23…
    Left part approaches Earth, right part recedes from Earth (or from Viewpoint which is same here)…

    It can be seen, that leading side of sunspots or magnetic field systematically grows during Earth passage, more on South than on North…
    If it was some Doppler effect (right receding half of hemisphere vs. left approaching half of hemisphere) mixed into Magnetic field measurement (which is measured by doppler change in frequency), it should behave same on both hemispheres…?
    If it was just a random coincidence, it would not behave systematically similar in neighbouring years…
    (It may be worth checking relation to Jupiter position on left or right of Earth, and north or south of equator? If it’s averaged whole year of data, Jupiter is half year on left side and half year on right side, almost??)

    If line in some box is systematically above or below 0, it means, that such hemisphere was systematically more negative or positive… If the line systematically grows or descends, it shows either the effect of Earth planet or the effect of changing view-point… (If the field was not dependent on Earth, it would be random and would not show systematic change during passage from left to right…)

    Thank you for pointing me in this direction… It’s worth sharing partial results with similar-minded people to gain more hints and comments…

  20. P.A.Semi says:

    Or maybe thus arranged it is better visible…

    Same data as above, just arranged in rows…

    1st row is north negative, 2nd row is north positive, 3rd row is south negative, 4th row is south positive.
    Left 15 columns is SOHO, next 10 columns in SDO. All years from 1st May to 30th April following year…
    (See description above, in which years which hemisphere has which leading polarity of sunspots and which is pole polarity…)
    In years of minimum the chart seems rising faster, but the Y axis is independent on each year… (chiefly because “Gauss” in SOHO data has cca 1.5x larger value)

  21. Paul Vaughan says:

    Ignorance (like “I don’t want to understand the discrete nature of things like QBO, Chandler wobble, and Hale”) is bliss. We carry on side by side without conflict …in peace …because debate causes hammer and hammer crushes freedom.

  22. Robert says:

    Structures inside or outside of the sun? Faint features at the sun’s north pole appear related to the ‘herring bone’ or chevron pattern we see spanning the solar surface. I wrote about these structures here: https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16299&start=225#p127597

  23. P.A.Semi says:

    Related to my charts above, I’ll just add here for completeness, without uploading more few hundred charts…

    If the field is normalized from LOS (line of sight) to Radial (by an empirically derived function), the “high” part above 30Gauss – that what is yellow and green on magnetograms, almost does not show any dependence on position left or right from Earth position, beside few years in Minimum phase of the Sunspot Cycle…
    The “low” part of field (below 30Gauss, that what is gray on magnetograms) has different transfer function, it is not radial but it is in all directions probably same, it has a strange peak at 37° left and right from Earth (viewer) position, and it seems to display a sharp upturn below Earth position in multiple years…

    It would deserve more analysis, here I’m just noting it for completeness, if someone would read this later…

    —–
    Re Paul Vaughan: discrete nature of things like QBO, Chandler wobble, and Hale
    http://semi.gurroa.cz/Chandler/ – it also seems to depend on gravitational influences from Sun, Moon and planets, and there seems to be a mass asymmetry in Earth’s core below Pacific ocean, since there is surface mass asymmetry with Andes balanced by Himalayas and Africa not balanced by Pacific, with axis of symmetry at 21°E and 69°W… The Chandler wobble seems to move contrary to that calculated from surface asymmetry, hence it shows there is core asymmetry in opposite direction…

    Again, I’ve formerly read your posts with huge pile of numbers regarding playing with frequencies and their sums and differences without any underlying meaning, it’s just an obstruction…

    If you find some relation in frequencies, then try to explain it by some phenomenon, and also try to verify the phases and try to explain the inconsistencies – because natural phenomena are often not behaving in smooth regular frequencies…

    Sometimes I’m thinking about your posts, that beside poetical language, maybe you engage in poetical mathematics also, where it’s prosaic dimension escapes me…

    —–
    Re Robert:

    I’ve read the post you linked and I somehow doubt they really measured interstellar (galactic) background magnetic field and not some component of the normal interplanetary magnetic field of the heliosphere…

    Akasofu is probably wrong with his thesis, since unipolar regions really are remnants of normal old bipolar regions – as evidenced from the synoptic maps i.e. if you track the regions across rotations, at least in SC23 and SC24 as observed from SOHO&SDO, and basic unit of sunspots is a pair, while unipolar spots are quite rare phenomenon…

    “planetary atmospheric storms” do not rotate related to magnetic pole but due to Coriolis force…

    If there was some outer belt causing the sunspot cycle, it would not turn each 11 year opposite direction ?

    About Saturn magnetic field – it is perfectly aligned with it’s rotation axis, which is why there is water ice ring maintained by diamagnetism of water on the equatorial plane… By my opinion the Saturn’s magnetic field is stabilized by an artificial hexagon magnet on it’s north pole, and it is not related to any outside influence… “Surrounding currents” are a consequence and not a causation, since they are too weak to influence planet interior probably by many orders of magnitude…?

    And final question about galactic influence on solar cycle – any possible galactic influence does not have either 11 or 22 years cycle… It may possibly form some DC component of solar activity, which I strongly doubt, but no AC…

    Thinking of a differential rotation being caused by a co-directional vortex at Sun’s poles (as Earth has counter-directional vortexes at poles) seems interesting…

    You may see the solar North and South poles differential rotation in my new videos:
    http://pialpha.cz/Sun/#Syn304
    (If not sure, pick “North Pole 2012-2013” below the orange circle, since that time there was complete real-time coverage from all sides at once from SDO and Stereo A+B… It’s a pitty that Stereo B failed in 2014…)

  24. Paul Vaughan says:

    Semi: It’s ok if we don’t understand each other. I’m a guy who’s always changing, sometimes suddenly and going in a totally new direction. Right now I couldn’t care less about climate and numbers. Our politicians are on the verge of committing western suicide by turning on China. Monstrous mistake. My top concern is this. Chinese people are EXTREMELY brilliant. Wanting them as enemies is PURELY INSANE. As you can see from my words, I am no longer focused on planets and climate …at all.

  25. tallbloke says:

    I’m extremely grateful to both of you for what you have contributed to science here at the talkshop. I have no objection to political comment, provided it stays withing the bounds of WordPress terms of service, but I think it would better serve the way this blog is looked on in posterity if we try to keep the science threads scientific. Let’s try to discuss politics on the threads where the headline article is itself overtly political.

  26. Paul Vaughan says:

    TB: During recent days I’ve been contemplating a total boycott on even thinking about planets and climate in direct protest of severe, intensifying, fatal western misdirection.

    I have visited neither wuwt nor ce in years now — feels like 5 or 6 years, but I can’t remember the actual date.

    It was a sudden good decision. I encountered too much evil there. I have felt cleansed since I left. Whatever has gone on there during the past 5 years — I haven’t cared at all.

    Given what is happening in the world now, I feel even better about leaving there as participating there was a total waste of time 5 years ago and in present context such sites are totally irrelevant in a world with problems countless orders of magnitude more immediate and pressing than anything we ever discussed there. Playing around there was just a naive hobby compared to what’s going on now.

    By 2013 we were at a point where we knew commentary had no effect on agenda. Under present circumstances I have begun to consider it irresponsible (for me at least) to not switch focus.

    I have expressed almost nothing of what I am thinking, which is growing and changing fast.

    The “climate” enemy (that’s code) was defeated by 2013 and so it turned to “making other trouble”, as bad people reliably do. The west has now set it’s auto-destruct sequence. The west is a suicidal patient in need of counsel. Perhaps only the most divine counsel can save the patient now.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s