The Gleissberg Cycle

[Ingolf]

I can't find something about the Gleissberg Cycle with the search function, so I would like to open a thread about it. In my opinion it is a interesting cycle to talk about, especially in the next decades. 

For users without knowing this cycle in a very short explanation: Beside the well known 11 yr Schwabe Cycle there are some more cycles. One of them is the Gleissberg Cycle with 80yrs plus minus 15yrs.

If you want to see this cycle go to spaceweatherlive.com and check out sun cycle and the historical cycle. Stretch the window down to the year 1750 and 2024. There you can see a kind of a sinus wave in all the cycles. You will immediately recognize that we are in a Gleissberg minimum right now, the last maximum was around 1957 - 1959. Historical years when checking the data. 

It will probably take 15 to 20 years until the next Gleissberg maximum, means around 2040. 

I recently saw the live stream of Dr. Tamitha Skov and she talked about historical Storms. I don't know if she mentioned Gleissberg but what she said was pretty much pointed on Gleissberg.

(it was about our todays electronic and we don't know what will happen to it when we are in the peak of Gleissberg Cycle because when the last peak was, there were no Spaceships, no Satellites or Internet and Smartphones. But that's another topic.) 

So what can we expect from a Gleissberg maximum? I am sure a lot of more activity but means this automatically stronger eruptions or just more often? 

Edited June 17 by Ingolf
Typo

[hamateur 1953]

I have heard of the name. Cannot recall where. But perhaps @3gMike may know something more.  He typically should respond within a few days. Honestly, I am a bit skeptical of any “ large overview” myself when the internal dynamics seem mysterious enough to puzzle me forever. Haha. Good luck @Ingolf  Mike 

[Ingolf]

11 minutes ago, hamateur 1953 said:

I have heard of the name. Cannot recall where. But perhaps @3gMike may know something more.  He typically should respond within a few days. Honestly, I am a bit skeptical of any “ large overview” myself when the internal dynamics seem mysterious enough to puzzle me forever. Haha. Good luck @Ingolf  Mike 

I am always sceptical when it comes to long term things, my personal life span is just way too low. That there is a cycle of around 80 years is valid and proved. It's pretty good visible in the historical sun cycles overview. 16 of the top 50 geomagnetic storms occurred when the Gleissberg Cycle was around its maximum. 

I don't know how strong the flares have been in the late 50s, can I find it somewhere?

That leads me to my first question, what does it mean when we are in a Gleissberg maximum, stronger flares or just more? 

Edited June 17 by Ingolf
Typo

[hamateur 1953]

Hey dude.  You probably cannot find flare data. However I was puzzled myself at the backwards shift in TCI peak vs 10.7 records when learning how tci is figured. Basically Geomagnetic interactions with certain molecules.  This wonderful person suggested I look only at Geomagnetic and sure enough prior to 10/1957 at least four large A index spikes were recorded. Incidentally about five months prior to solar maximum in 1958.  So unless others know of direct x ray archives prior to 1976 The only method of locating flares that I know of is the uncertainty of A index records GFZ being best accepted. .Edit.  I use Jan Alvestads historical data charts usually. Convenient and accurate from my own memory too 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 17 by hamateur 1953
Solen

[Philalethes]

Right, I recall this thread now, I was planning on making a comment on it.

On 6/17/2024 at 10:50 PM, Ingolf said:

I am always sceptical when it comes to long term things, my personal life span is just way too low. That there is a cycle of around 80 years is valid and proved.

As much as I think potential longer cycles of Solar activity is a highly fascinating topic, I'm not entirely sure we can say at this point that the existence of Gleissberg cycles have been validated and proven beyond any reasonable doubt, but there's certainly a huge amount of literature on it (which I've only scratched the surface of myself), including a lot of good evidence. It's certainly something I'd like to see investigated more.

As you say, long-term things are hard to figure out, especially when the cycle in question would only have occurred a handful of times throughout our most reliable Solar observation records, let alone longer cycles; various proxy records like isotope data are great in that regard, but of course not as reliable as the more direct observations we've made over the past few centuries.

Personally I wouldn't mind having a thread dedicated to discussing it, but I suppose it's up to the admins/mods whether they deem it proven or not.

[Ingolf]

13 minutes ago, Philalethes said:

Right, I recall this thread now, I was planning on making a comment on it.

As much as I think potential longer cycles of Solar activity is a highly fascinating topic, I'm not entirely sure we can say at this point that the existence of Gleissberg cycles have been validated and proven beyond any reasonable doubt, but there's certainly a huge amount of literature on it (which I've only scratched the surface of myself), including a lot of good evidence. It's certainly something I'd like to see investigated more.

As you say, long-term things are hard to figure out, especially when the cycle in question would only have occurred a handful of times throughout our most reliable Solar observation records, let alone longer cycles; various proxy records like isotope data are great in that regard, but of course not as reliable as the more direct observations we've made over the past few centuries.

Personally I wouldn't mind having a thread dedicated to discussing it, but I suppose it's up to the admins/mods whether they deem it proven or not.

Yes, you are absolutely right, the graphics show the cycle and it is although more reliable than longer cycles, but not 100 percent proved and confirmed by scientist's. It is as you said by the mods how they interpret any discussion about the Gleissberg Cycle. 

It's a little bit tricky in my opinion, it is somewhere between proven and in the same time far away from other abstract theories. 

What do you think @Marcel de Bont, is there a possibility to talk about Gleissberg Cycle here? 

[Marcel de Bont]

14 minuten geleden, Ingolf zei:

Yes, you are absolutely right, the graphics show the cycle and it is although more reliable than longer cycles, but not 100 percent proved and confirmed by scientist's. It is as you said by the mods how they interpret any discussion about the Gleissberg Cycle. 

It's a little bit tricky in my opinion, it is somewhere between proven and in the same time far away from other abstract theories. 

What do you think @Marcel de Bont, is there a possibility to talk about Gleissberg Cycle here? 

Of course this is okay to discuss, it isn't set in stone that there are large cycles like this which repeat themselves but the data points at there being a pattern. It's an unproven theory yes but with substance behind it, the unproven theories topic is dedicated to theories which are totally outside the realm of mainstream science.

[Ingolf]

6 minutes ago, Marcel de Bont said:

Of course this is okay to discuss, it isn't set in stone that there are large cycles like this which repeat themselves but the data points at there being a pattern. It's an unproven theory yes but with substance behind it, the unproven theories topic is dedicated to theories which are totally outside the realm of mainstream science.

Thanks for clarity 👍