Southern field close to flipping?

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

It looks like the southern field is close to a first flip… afterwards it flips back, etcetera… To be watched the next weeks…
You need to check the unfiltered field. the unfiltered number is the 10 day average of the field.

the filtered field is nothing more then the 360 days smoothed average!

it is like comparing the 10 days smoothe sunspot number vs the 13 month smoothed sunspot number. 

 

WSO Polar Field Observations - 1976-Present


http://wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html

 

 

Edited August 11, 2022 by Patrick P.A. Geryl

[3gMike]

2 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

It looks like the southern field is close to a first flip… afterwards it flips back, etcetera… To be watched the next weeks…
You need to check the unfiltered field. the unfiltered number is the 10 day average of the field.

the filtered field is nothing more then the 360 days smoothed average!

it is like comparing the 10 days smoothe sunspot number vs the 13 month smoothed sunspot number. 

 

WSO Polar Field Observations - 1976-Present


http://wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html

 

 

Hi Patrick,

Looking at the same data for the Northern field - that dropped to 12 on reading for 11th March but has since climbed back up to 64, so presumably the same could happen with the Southern field ?

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

2 uren geleden, 3gMike zei:

Hi Patrick,

Looking at the same data for the Northern field - that dropped to 12 on reading for 11th March but has since climbed back up to 64, so presumably the same could happen with the Southern field ?

Yes it can climb back. But! Do I see a negative sunspot in the northern hemisphere? If you get the same polarity in both hemispheres….

[3gMike]

10 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

Yes it can climb back. But! Do I see a negative sunspot in the northern hemisphere? If you get the same polarity in both hemispheres….

I guess you are referring to AR3076 which has just turned into a Beta today. That could be interesting - I seem to remember reading somewhere that these reverse polarity spots (maybe 3% of all spots in a cycle) can be quite active.

AR3078 in the southern hemisphere is currently only an Alpha, but the configuration is also potentially reverse polarity.

As you said in your original post, we need to watch this to see how it develops.

[Yak]

What does this mean for sunspot numbers?

 

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

6 uren geleden, Yak zei:

What does this mean for sunspot numbers?

 

When a polar field is close to flipping, it reaches its highest strength and also its highest sunspot number! The highest strength from the cycle is reached when the axial dipole field is close to flipping. We researched all the cycles since the measurements started and found a perfect match. It is explained in this article
 

(1) (PDF) Polar Field Strength = 10.7 cm Solar Radio Flux?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348686960_Polar_Field_Strength_107_cm_Solar_Radio_Flux

6 uren geleden, 3gMike zei:

I guess you are referring to AR3076 which has just turned into a Beta today. That could be interesting - I seem to remember reading somewhere that these reverse polarity spots (maybe 3% of all spots in a cycle) can be quite active.

AR3078 in the southern hemisphere is currently only an Alpha, but the configuration is also potentially reverse polarity.

As you said in your original post, we need to watch this to see how it develops.

The reason that there is a lot of activity when a polar field flips is that the polarity of both fields is the same! North and South are both plus or minus… That gives fireworks…

[Newbie]

14 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

When a polar field is close to flipping, it reaches its highest strength and also its highest sunspot number! The highest strength from the cycle is reached when the axial dipole field is close to flipping. We researched all the cycles since the measurements started and found a perfect match. It is explained in this article
 

(1) (PDF) Polar Field Strength = 10.7 cm Solar Radio Flux?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348686960_Polar_Field_Strength_107_cm_Solar_Radio_Flux

The reason that there is a lot of activity when a polar field flips is that the polarity of both fields is the same! North and South are both plus or minus… That gives fireworks…

From my understanding the reversal of magnetic poles or (flipping) takes place during Solar Maximum when the Sun is at its height of activity, in roughly an 11 year cycle. IMHO we are not at Solar Max. Reverse polarity sunspots are not uncommon as has been reported already in several posts on these forums.

Where are the published research papers that show both hemispheres of the Sun exhibiting the same polarity fields and fireworks? This smacks of hype. During solar max the magnetic fields of both hemispheres weaken down to zero and then they flip and bounce back up again.

Accordingly, Hales Polarity Laws have withstood the test of time till now. Solar activity waxes and wanes along the path to Solar Max as has already been evidenced in this current solar cycle (25). Reverse polarity sunspots, although uncommon, come and go, the odd equatorial sunspots occur 'out of season', likewise the occurrence of higher latitude spots heading towards Solar Max, but it is all normal behaviour from our star.

Pole reversal actually causes a crinkling of the heliospheric current sheet, think solar wind, which gives added protection from cosmic radiation. It does not lead to an increase in geomagnetic storms, it does not lead to an increase in solar flares neither does it cause an increase in superheated plasma: CME's. It happens during the height of the Suns activity when high number of sunspots and high solar flux occurs.

As we progress along the road to Solar Max sunspots will occur closer to the equator of the Sun but we are not there yet IMHO.

N.

Edited August 13, 2022 by Newbie

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

20 uren geleden, Newbie zei:

 During solar max the magnetic fields of both hemispheres weaken down to zero and then they flip and bounce back up again.

 

Every astronomer thinks that is true. However! Every 11 years the poles switch! + becomes - and - becomes +

Result: they WEAKEN after they reach zero!

Furthermore…

Up until now only a basic formula has been presented for the axial dipole field. However, if we delve deeper into the issue, we find that there are 2 solutions for the problem, just like matter and anti-matter exist, the axial dipole field can be in phase or in anti-phase. 
 

and that dramatically changes everything what we know about the magnetic field of the Sun…
 

(PDF) 2 Solutions for the Axial Dipole Field: In Phase and in Anti-Phase


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333445984_2_Solutions_for_the_Axial_Dipole_Field_In_Phase_and_in_Anti-Phase

[3gMike]

On 8/13/2022 at 8:03 AM, Newbie said:

From my understanding the reversal of magnetic poles or (flipping) takes place during Solar Maximum when the Sun is at its height of activity, in roughly an 11 year cycle. IMHO we are not at Solar Max. Reverse polarity sunspots are not uncommon as has been reported already in several posts on these forums.

Where are the published research papers that show both hemispheres of the Sun exhibiting the same polarity fields and fireworks? This smacks of hype. During solar max the magnetic fields of both hemispheres weaken down to zero and then they flip and bounce back up again.

Accordingly, Hales Polarity Laws have withstood the test of time till now. Solar activity waxes and wanes along the path to Solar Max as has already been evidenced in this current solar cycle (25). Reverse polarity sunspots, although uncommon, come and go, the odd equatorial sunspots occur 'out of season', likewise the occurrence of higher latitude spots heading towards Solar Max, but it is all normal behaviour from our star.

Pole reversal actually causes a crinkling of the heliospheric current sheet, think solar wind, which gives added protection from cosmic radiation. It does not lead to an increase in geomagnetic storms, it does not lead to an increase in solar flares neither does it cause an increase in superheated plasma: CME's. It happens during the height of the Suns activity when high number of sunspots and high solar flux occurs.

As we progress along the road to Solar Max sunspots will occur closer to the equator of the Sun but we are not there yet IMHO.

N.

Patrick's original post referred to polar fields, and he linked to reliable data from the Wilcox Solar Observatory(WSO)

That link appears to demonstrate that the change in polarity of polar fields is not a one-off event at maximum - it can change several times over a period of years - and during those periods north and south poles can have the same polarity.

The northern polar field first 'flipped' between 8th Jan 2011 and 19th March 2011, then again 29th March 2011 to 13th January 2012, followed by 1st June 2012 to 29th Sept 2012 and 2nd January 2014 to 11th July 2014. It flipped for the final time on 7th January 2015. The southern pole had maintained it's polarity since the previous cycle and only flipped once on 27th May 2013 and has remained the same until now. 

I find a couple of things about this dataset to be interesting, and perhaps worthy of further investigation. Firstly, most of the northern pole changes initiated in January. Secondly, the poles had their final flip almost 2 years apart.

[Newbie]

 

1 hour ago, 3gMike said:

Patrick's original post referred to polar fields, and he linked to reliable data from the Wilcox Solar Observatory(WSO)

That link appears to demonstrate that the change in polarity of polar fields is not a one-off event at maximum - it can change several times over a period of years - and during those periods north and south poles can have the same polarity.

The northern polar field first 'flipped' between 8th Jan 2011 and 19th March 2011, then again 29th March 2011 to 13th January 2012, followed by 1st June 2012 to 29th Sept 2012 and 2nd January 2014 to 11th July 2014. It flipped for the final time on 7th January 2015. The southern pole had maintained it's polarity since the previous cycle and only flipped once on 27th May 2013 and has remained the same until now. 

I find a couple of things about this dataset to be interesting, and perhaps worthy of further investigation. Firstly, most of the northern pole changes initiated in January. Secondly, the poles had their final flip almost 2 years apart.

Hello 3gMike the post I quoted was a later post, which used non peer reviewed references.  

WRT the WSO data I keep an open mind and I agree it's an interesting dataset. I await the peer reviewed publications that might arise.

Kind regards,

Newbie. 

7 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

Every astronomer thinks that is true. However! Every 11 years the poles switch! + becomes - and - becomes +

Result: they WEAKEN after they reach zero!

Furthermore…

Up until now only a basic formula has been presented for the axial dipole field. However, if we delve deeper into the issue, we find that there are 2 solutions for the problem, just like matter and anti-matter exist, the axial dipole field can be in phase or in anti-phase. 
 

and that dramatically changes everything what we know about the magnetic field of the Sun…
 

(PDF) 2 Solutions for the Axial Dipole Field: In Phase and in Anti-Phase


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333445984_2_Solutions_for_the_Axial_Dipole_Field_In_Phase_and_in_Anti-Phase

Patrick I wish you all the best in your endeavours.

Regards,

Newbie

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

Op 12/8/2022 om 12:11, 3gMike zei:

I guess you are referring to AR3076 which has just turned into a Beta today. That could be interesting - I seem to remember reading somewhere that these reverse polarity spots (maybe 3% of all spots in a cycle) can be quite active.

AR3078 in the southern hemisphere is currently only an Alpha, but the configuration is also potentially reverse polarity.

As you said in your original post, we need to watch this to see how it develops.

AR3078 became Beta-Gamma overnight. To be watched. My bet is that the southern field did a short flip flop. We will know in 3 weeks…

[3gMike]

2 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

AR3078 became Beta-Gamma overnight. To be watched. My bet is that the southern field did a short flip flop. We will know in 3 weeks…

Still showing as Beta on here, with AR3079 showing Beta-Gamma at 10:00UTC. There certainly seems to be some intermixing developing in AR3078 (observed on HMI 48hr movie).

[Bry]

Seems like a sunspot finally flipped polarity...AR3076 according to

https://www.spaceweather.com

How exciting!

 

[3gMike]

1 hour ago, Bry said:

Seems like a sunspot finally flipped polarity...AR3076 according to

https://www.spaceweather.com

How exciting!

 

Hi Bry, This is the one that Patrick and I were discussing earlier in the thread (last Friday)

This type of sunspot can produce a fair bit of flaring, although this one has shrunk in size, but increased in number of spots over the last few days.

You can see why it has the potential to grow complex (mixed fields) when you look at the WSO photospheric field plot

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

Update. The 10 day average for the southern field on July 29 was -3. This means it could have flipped and flipped back. 
We have to follow this, because if the field stays there, this means continuous high activity in the Southern Hemisphere!

[Philalethes]

On 8/12/2022 at 6:25 PM, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

When a polar field is close to flipping, it reaches its highest strength and also its highest sunspot number! The highest strength from the cycle is reached when the axial dipole field is close to flipping. We researched all the cycles since the measurements started and found a perfect match.

Scott McIntosh, who originally predicted that SC25 would be stronger than predicted, but later said it probably wouldn't after all due to the terminator event occurring later than he expected, also expressed something recently that would suggest this cycle will actually be rather weak. However, if the field were about to flip now, that would, unless I'm missing something, make this cycle extraordinarily weak.

Here is what he tweeted recently:

 

[Archmonoth]

15 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

Update. The 10 day average for the southern field on July 29 was -3. This means it could have flipped and flipped back. 

I don't think it would flip back again so quickly. I doubt it has flipped at all, even the new regions are still leading/emerging the same, no change. 

15 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

We have to follow this, because if the field stays there, this means continuous high activity in the Southern Hemisphere!

The southern has been active all year, and I don't think continued southern activity means a flip happened. 

 

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

It looks we have now a third reversed sunspot! In a few days we will have the update from the Southern polar field..
 

[MinYoongi]

On 8/19/2022 at 2:57 PM, Philalethes Bythos said:

Scott McIntosh, who originally predicted that SC25 would be stronger than predicted, but later said it probably wouldn't after all due to the terminator event occurring later than he expected, also expressed something recently that would suggest this cycle will actually be rather weak. However, if the field were about to flip now, that would, unless I'm missing something, make this cycle extraordinarily weak.

Here is what he tweeted recently:

 

Looking at the comments he just predicts an earlier max around early 2024. I dont see anything saying its weaker than he anticipates, did i miss something patrick? Thank you for sharing. And im curious for the update about the flipping.

[Philalethes]

3 hours ago, MinYoongi said:

Looking at the comments he just predicts an earlier max around early 2024. I dont see anything saying its weaker than he anticipates, did i miss something patrick? Thank you for sharing. And im curious for the update about the flipping.

Yeah, you're right about that; he does after all suggest in his work that the strength of a cycle is a function of how long the previous cycle was, among other parameters, so shorter doesn't necessarily imply weaker. I suppose I rather found it interesting that the terminator event came later than he expected, and that he now suggests the peak might come earlier too, making it sound like he thinks the cycle will at least be shorter than anticipated. Although it's probably pointless to speculate about at this point, if that were to be the case, then by his own work that would suggest that SC26 could end up being very strong. It's interesting work and predictions, but we'll just have to wait and see on that one.

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

1 uur geleden, Philalethes Bythos zei:

Yeah, you're right about that; he does after all suggest in his work that the strength of a cycle is a function of how long the previous cycle was, among other parameters, so shorter doesn't necessarily imply weaker. I suppose I rather found it interesting that the terminator event came later than he expected, and that he now suggests the peak might come earlier too, making it sound like he thinks the cycle will at least be shorter than anticipated. Although it's probably pointless to speculate about at this point, if that were to be the case, then by his own work that would suggest that SC26 could end up being very strong. It's interesting work and predictions, but we'll just have to wait and see on that one.

We found several faults in his theories. They were almost published in AGU. A preprint is somewhere still available…

Point is that we also found a novel theory with the 10.7 solar flux to calculate the upcoming strength. The fault is less then 5.8 percent. Our theory points to a weaker cycle then cycle 24, with the high late 2023. 

 

(PDF) Calculating the Exact Strength of Solar Cycle 25 using 365 Days Smoothing

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356556167_Calculating_the_Exact_Strength_of_Solar_Cycle_25_using_365_Days_Smoothing

[Philalethes]

32 minutes ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

We found several faults in his theories. They were almost published in AGU. A preprint is somewhere still available…

Point is that we also found a novel theory with the 10.7 solar flux to calculate the upcoming strength. The fault is less then 5.8 percent. Our theory points to a weaker cycle then cycle 24, with the high late 2023. 

 

(PDF) Calculating the Exact Strength of Solar Cycle 25 using 365 Days Smoothing

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356556167_Calculating_the_Exact_Strength_of_Solar_Cycle_25_using_365_Days_Smoothing

Well, the great thing about scientific predictions is that we'll get results sooner or later that will determine what is correct. I'd be curious to know what flaws you've found in the work of McIntosh, as I'm not really familiar with the details of it, only that it purportedly claims a certain relationship between cycle length and the strength of the next cycle, with shorter cycles leading to stronger next ones.

As for your own prediction, from skimming that paper, it's based on taking a 365-day period at the transition between cycles and using this to predict the duration and strength of the cycle? Sounds interesting, and almost too good to be true, but if it works it works. Correct me if I've misunderstood your work, or oversimplified it. At least it sounds like you and McIntosh both agree that this current cycle might be relatively short.

[MinYoongi]

14 minutes ago, Philalethes Bythos said:

Well, the great thing about scientific predictions is that we'll get results sooner or later that will determine what is correct. I'd be curious to know what flaws you've found in the work of McIntosh, as I'm not really familiar with the details of it, only that it purportedly claims a certain relationship between cycle length and the strength of the next cycle, with shorter cycles leading to stronger next ones.

As for your own prediction, from skimming that paper, it's based on taking a 365-day period at the transition between cycles and using this to predict the duration and strength of the cycle? Sounds interesting, and almost too good to be true, but if it works it works. Correct me if I've misunderstood your work, or oversimplified it. At least it sounds like you and McIntosh both agree that this current cycle might be relatively short.

Scott and I follow eachother on Twitter. I had a brief chat with him once, his theory is shared with Bob Leamons Theory about the terminator events and about the "cycle of fifths". Theres alot on Bobs Twitter about this! I can DM some of it to you later.

 

Basically Scott told me the earlier the Terminator, the stronger the cycle. When he published his theory/research/forcast the Terminator has not happened yet (it now has) and he said IF the Terminator occures around xy this could be a very strong cycle. He told me then that since the Terminator occured like half a year to a year (cant remember exactly) later than he forecasted in his paper, this cycle will likely be average/a tad above average. 

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

19 minuten geleden, MinYoongi zei:

 

 

Basically Scott told me the earlier the Terminator, the stronger the cycle. When he published his theory/research/forcast the Terminator has not happened yet (it now has) and he said IF the Terminator occures around xy this could be a very strong cycle. He told me then that since the Terminator occured like half a year to a year (cant remember exactly) later than he forecasted in his paper, this cycle will likely be average/a tad above average. 

Basically Scott made an essential fault in not incorporating the start of a new cycle in relation to the Terminator. We found some easy to understand relations. The only fault we made was not incorporating the weakest cycle. Anyway, the Terminator fell after our latest date, implying a weak cycle. SCOTT SHOULD READ THIS.

(PDF) Relating the Start Of Solar Cycle 25 to the Terminator of Solar Cycle 24

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353120822_Relating_the_Start_Of_Solar_Cycle_25_to_the_Terminator_of_Solar_Cycle_24

[Philalethes]

23 minutes ago, MinYoongi said:

Basically Scott told me the earlier the Terminator, the stronger the cycle. When he published his theory/research/forcast the Terminator has not happened yet (it now has) and he said IF the Terminator occures around xy this could be a very strong cycle. He told me then that since the Terminator occured like half a year to a year (cant remember exactly) later than he forecasted in his paper, this cycle will likely be average/a tad above average. 

Yes, exactly; that's essentially exactly what I was getting at earlier, i.e. here:

3 hours ago, Philalethes Bythos said:

I suppose I rather found it interesting that the terminator event came later than he expected, and that he now suggests the peak might come earlier too, making it sound like he thinks the cycle will at least be shorter than anticipated. Although it's probably pointless to speculate about at this point, if that were to be the case, then by his own work that would suggest that SC26 could end up being very strong. It's interesting work and predictions, but we'll just have to wait and see on that one.

From what I understood, this claim is what Patrick contests, i.e. that it doesn't serve as a good predictor according to him, so I'd be interested to know what flaws he's found.