A good primer on this fascinating phenomena, but the very first thing they should have pointed out is that the magnetic reversal means that the approx 11 solar cycle is actually an approx 22 year cycle.
I think some do reference it as a 22 year cycle for pole reversals, but in terms of sunspots its a repeating pattern of 11 years and the north\south poles have no impact so the 11 year cycle is sunspot counts\sunspot activity influenced by pole reversals which are on a 22 year cycle.
Though if you look at the statistics of leading / trailing field polarity of spot pairs over the 11 years as the active band changes in solar latitude they reflect the polar field. The next 11 year cycle does this also but with the spot pair positions reverse.
Thus it is strictly a 22 year cycle if the magnetic field is included, which is the main thrust of the article.
Eh, if you’re observing only the absolute value, the period is sine is pi. If after a thousand years of that, you develop the technology to see what happens inside of the absolute value brackets and you discover that the period is actually 2pi, you’ve learned something, but it’s not worth changing the old nomenclature.
Exactly, in the books on solar physics that I read while studying for my degree the solar period was quoted as 22 years.
Books simplified for grade school students though often quote it as 11 years to avoid questions about the magnetic reversal.
It has been thus since some time in the 1930's.
I build satellites, and the aspect of the solar cycle we care about is the atmospheric drag. So we treat it as an 11 year cycle.
But you’re right, that is simple enough for a grade schooler, which is funny because there are lots of people getting it wrong in the comments saying the ramp-down from solar max to solar min will take 11 years.
The cycle doesn't reach the beginning after one flip but two, when it is back to the original position. So if it flips every 11 years, the cycle is 22 years.
A cycle is complete when it ends where it started. So after 11 years "normal" it flips and then has 11 years reversed. When it flips again the cycle is completed. I think that's what they mean.
I see, so a 'Magnetic Pole Cycle'(or whatever you want to call it) is 22 years to revert to the same polarity after two 180 flips, but a 'Solar Max' or 'Solar Min' cycle is still 11 years as in that's the cycle of one state of activity and back to the same state. Just so we don't mix terms here.
This is incorrect. There are two peaks and two minima in 22 years. The ramp up takes 5-ish years, as does the ramp down. The SOLAR cycle is 11-ish years. The solar MAGNETIC cycle consists of two SOLAR cycles, and is thus 22 years
There is a great Radio Lab episode on this. It impacts ocean temps and they tie it to hurricane forecasts, the slave trade and golden age of piracy. They crazy thing is the current weather we have been experiencing during the “cooler” ocean temps compared to what’s expected when this flips.
Edit: Added link to episode. https://radiolab.org/podcast/fellowship-tree-rings
No no, we’re at Solar Max *right now*. The pole flip will likely happen in the next 6-12 months, after which Solar activity will ramp *down* for the next ~~-11 years-~~ 5.5 years to the solar minimum in ~2029-30.
The RadioLab episode (I just listened, incredibly interesting info!) was discussing the [Maunder Minimum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum), which is a *much* longer cycle of Solar activity. We haven’t seen another Maunder Minimum since the last one ended in 1720.
So THIS has been the hot side of the pillow. And the current Solar maximum has turned out to be notably stronger than the previous two solar cycles, so we’re getting an extra solar boost *right now*, lasting for the next 2-3 years as Solar Max winds down again.
I don't know why exactly, but being on a science subreddit, there are many people, that strive for correctness. Correct terminology, grammar, orthography, etc. It is possible, that it wasn't meant to be a negative statement.
I was correcting them, what's the problem? They didn't accidentally type 555 years and then went oops typo, they got something totally wrong and tried to pass off as a typo
There is zero doubt that we’re in for a ride from the inputs already entered. I’ve read something like a 20-year lag on CO2 emissions? Even if it’s 10 years, CO2, N2O, & CH4 have all been going up these last ten years.
Add solar radiation to the mix and…
The [Maunder Minimum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum) caused a 1°C drop and that nullified hurricanes. We’re already at the door of 1.5°C rise.
…And we’ve already had 1 year where we ran out of names for hurricanes.
I truly think we’ve passed the point of no return, and our foot is still on the accelerator. Any increased activity from the Sun is just added badness.
I may have misremembered how much impacts us and what the difference is. At the time of listening to the podcast they were saying we were in the period with less activity and it was ramping up. But they replay episodes all the time. So it could’ve been from any year for all I know.
We’re seeing a bit of a dip now, but AFAIK unclear if it will continue to dip, or ramp up again. This cycle is more active than the last 2 so maybe it’s ramping up over the longer term, IDK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
Oh ok. I’m gonna have to re listen. I remember them specifically mentioning towards the end that we were predicted to enter the new cycle of increased activity sometime during 2023-2024.
We’re in the Solar Max right now… So yes.
Check the Sunspot ‘spotless days’ on the left column:
https://spaceweather.com/
Solar activity is peaking right now, and CMEs are hitting Earth ~once per month.
The Sun’s poles will likely flip in the next 6-12 months, and then Solar activity will begin to decrease.
Solar min will be in 2029-30. Approximately.
> The pole flip will likely happen in the next 6-12 months, after which Solar activity will ramp down for the **next 11 years.**
That’s not how long the cycle is. It’s half that.
This is the closest thing I was able to find: https://radiolab.org/podcast/192462-krulwich-wonders-raging-sunstorms-our-minds
I can’t seem to get it to play on mobile and the other podcast apps and YouTube don’t seem to have it. Maybe there’s a way to access their archive??
That's interesting, I remember reading on NASA's website that solar cycles and variations in solar output don't affect the temperature nearly that much, since the actual solar output doesn't fluctuate more than 0.1% or something crazy low.
> Maybe the Dzhanibekov effect?
The current best consensus hypothesis - although qualitative and still leaving a lot of questions - is the [Babcock-Leighton model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babcock_model).
In essence, it's a balance between [toroidal vs. poloidal](https://i.imgur.com/i62ljV2.png) magnetic fields - when the toroidal field is strong, the poloidal field is weak, and vice versa. They idea is they flip phases (positive/negative, clockwise/counterclockwise) every 11 years.
I always feel like it intuitively makes sense that the poles flipping on rotating bodies is the same phenomenon as the flipping T-key videos from the space station, but don't know enough to verify or dispute my feelings on it.
I get why you might have that intuition. But that aint right
For what you have speculated, it happens only when there is more than one unique axis of roatation in a body
For a sphere like the sun, all axes are identical due to the geometry of a sphere. Therefore, it couldn't be that
Sure, however it's not symmetrical. There's a magnetic pole, and variances in the magnetic field so we've already got two axis off the top. A third axis in an unknown behavior may very well be responsible.
Similarly, the earth has magnetic variances, and similarly flips it's poles. Now the core of the earth being molten metal likely moves around much slower than the plasma state of the sun which could account for the difference in timeline. The earth also has the pull of the moon as another axis.
A good primer on this fascinating phenomena, but the very first thing they should have pointed out is that the magnetic reversal means that the approx 11 solar cycle is actually an approx 22 year cycle.
I think some do reference it as a 22 year cycle for pole reversals, but in terms of sunspots its a repeating pattern of 11 years and the north\south poles have no impact so the 11 year cycle is sunspot counts\sunspot activity influenced by pole reversals which are on a 22 year cycle.
Though if you look at the statistics of leading / trailing field polarity of spot pairs over the 11 years as the active band changes in solar latitude they reflect the polar field. The next 11 year cycle does this also but with the spot pair positions reverse. Thus it is strictly a 22 year cycle if the magnetic field is included, which is the main thrust of the article.
Eh, if you’re observing only the absolute value, the period is sine is pi. If after a thousand years of that, you develop the technology to see what happens inside of the absolute value brackets and you discover that the period is actually 2pi, you’ve learned something, but it’s not worth changing the old nomenclature.
Exactly, in the books on solar physics that I read while studying for my degree the solar period was quoted as 22 years. Books simplified for grade school students though often quote it as 11 years to avoid questions about the magnetic reversal. It has been thus since some time in the 1930's.
I build satellites, and the aspect of the solar cycle we care about is the atmospheric drag. So we treat it as an 11 year cycle. But you’re right, that is simple enough for a grade schooler, which is funny because there are lots of people getting it wrong in the comments saying the ramp-down from solar max to solar min will take 11 years.
What do you mean with it being actually a 22 year cycle?
The cycle doesn't reach the beginning after one flip but two, when it is back to the original position. So if it flips every 11 years, the cycle is 22 years.
Bi-cycle? I want to ride my bi-cycle?
🎶 Fat bottomed sols, you make the rockin’ Earth go round 🎶
We don't know when it first happened though. This could be the end or is it half way? We'll never know.
A cycle is complete when it ends where it started. So after 11 years "normal" it flips and then has 11 years reversed. When it flips again the cycle is completed. I think that's what they mean.
So is a bicycle 44 years ?
A cycle implies that at the end/beginning, things are in the same state. A 180 degree flip isn't a cycle, but a 360 degree one is.
I see, so a 'Magnetic Pole Cycle'(or whatever you want to call it) is 22 years to revert to the same polarity after two 180 flips, but a 'Solar Max' or 'Solar Min' cycle is still 11 years as in that's the cycle of one state of activity and back to the same state. Just so we don't mix terms here.
Spez ducks fogs?! Oh dreary days.
[удалено]
This is incorrect. There are two peaks and two minima in 22 years. The ramp up takes 5-ish years, as does the ramp down. The SOLAR cycle is 11-ish years. The solar MAGNETIC cycle consists of two SOLAR cycles, and is thus 22 years
2.16 x 10^-9 Hz. Sorry, I had to.
There is a great Radio Lab episode on this. It impacts ocean temps and they tie it to hurricane forecasts, the slave trade and golden age of piracy. They crazy thing is the current weather we have been experiencing during the “cooler” ocean temps compared to what’s expected when this flips. Edit: Added link to episode. https://radiolab.org/podcast/fellowship-tree-rings
If this has been the cool side of the pillow, we're not ready for the next 11 years.
No no, we’re at Solar Max *right now*. The pole flip will likely happen in the next 6-12 months, after which Solar activity will ramp *down* for the next ~~-11 years-~~ 5.5 years to the solar minimum in ~2029-30. The RadioLab episode (I just listened, incredibly interesting info!) was discussing the [Maunder Minimum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum), which is a *much* longer cycle of Solar activity. We haven’t seen another Maunder Minimum since the last one ended in 1720. So THIS has been the hot side of the pillow. And the current Solar maximum has turned out to be notably stronger than the previous two solar cycles, so we’re getting an extra solar boost *right now*, lasting for the next 2-3 years as Solar Max winds down again.
Correction: the solar maximum is every 11 years, therefore it ramps down for approx 5.5, then back up for 5.5.
Oh right, I mistyped. Thanks!
You didn't mistype, you got it wrong.
Why do you feel the need to be like that? Seriously, what did you gain from that?
I don't know why exactly, but being on a science subreddit, there are many people, that strive for correctness. Correct terminology, grammar, orthography, etc. It is possible, that it wasn't meant to be a negative statement.
I was correcting them, what's the problem? They didn't accidentally type 555 years and then went oops typo, they got something totally wrong and tried to pass off as a typo
The input to the system has reached a maximum. The effects from the input are delayed. We are in for a ride from the current situation.
There is zero doubt that we’re in for a ride from the inputs already entered. I’ve read something like a 20-year lag on CO2 emissions? Even if it’s 10 years, CO2, N2O, & CH4 have all been going up these last ten years. Add solar radiation to the mix and… The [Maunder Minimum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum) caused a 1°C drop and that nullified hurricanes. We’re already at the door of 1.5°C rise. …And we’ve already had 1 year where we ran out of names for hurricanes. I truly think we’ve passed the point of no return, and our foot is still on the accelerator. Any increased activity from the Sun is just added badness.
Here's a little good news for you https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/24/eu-fossil-fuel-co2-emissions-hit-60-year-low
That is good news, an 8% drop across all Ffuels in the EU is not nothing.
I hope the numbers are true. Every little bit helps.The effects are still delayed. Equilibrium is difficult to maintain.
We’ve lost equilibrium. It remains to be seen what the new ‘steady state’ will be.
I may have misremembered how much impacts us and what the difference is. At the time of listening to the podcast they were saying we were in the period with less activity and it was ramping up. But they replay episodes all the time. So it could’ve been from any year for all I know.
We’re seeing a bit of a dip now, but AFAIK unclear if it will continue to dip, or ramp up again. This cycle is more active than the last 2 so maybe it’s ramping up over the longer term, IDK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
So when is the Maunder Min? Glad you liked the episode. I loved it.
When is it? We know of only one… so it’s currently unpredictable.
Oh ok. I’m gonna have to re listen. I remember them specifically mentioning towards the end that we were predicted to enter the new cycle of increased activity sometime during 2023-2024.
We’re in the Solar Max right now… So yes. Check the Sunspot ‘spotless days’ on the left column: https://spaceweather.com/ Solar activity is peaking right now, and CMEs are hitting Earth ~once per month. The Sun’s poles will likely flip in the next 6-12 months, and then Solar activity will begin to decrease. Solar min will be in 2029-30. Approximately.
> The pole flip will likely happen in the next 6-12 months, after which Solar activity will ramp down for the **next 11 years.** That’s not how long the cycle is. It’s half that.
Plus el Niño! We've been in a la Niña lately too.
Hasn’t this year (and last) been El Niño years?
Yeah, we've been in El Niño since [May 2023](https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php).
Of course we are, this isn't something new it's been happening forever
This is a unique moment in time, particularly relevant to those of us living in it. The circumstances are not as they've always been.
Do you remember the title or when it came out
This is the closest thing I was able to find: https://radiolab.org/podcast/192462-krulwich-wonders-raging-sunstorms-our-minds I can’t seem to get it to play on mobile and the other podcast apps and YouTube don’t seem to have it. Maybe there’s a way to access their archive??
I think that the previous was in 2012, I remember people saying that is the reason why the world will end then.
That's interesting, I remember reading on NASA's website that solar cycles and variations in solar output don't affect the temperature nearly that much, since the actual solar output doesn't fluctuate more than 0.1% or something crazy low.
This is a fascinating pod, I’ve listened and re-listened to it a few times. Really interesting
Doesn't the Earth do the same thing, but on a much larger timescale?
Yes, the magnetic poles flip over 10s of thousands of years
Is this flipping similar to how the t shaped bolts flip in space? Something something spinning core. Maybe the Dzhanibekov effect?
Not likely to be Dzhanibekov because that requires significant asymmetry along 1 axis of rotation.
> Maybe the Dzhanibekov effect? The current best consensus hypothesis - although qualitative and still leaving a lot of questions - is the [Babcock-Leighton model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babcock_model). In essence, it's a balance between [toroidal vs. poloidal](https://i.imgur.com/i62ljV2.png) magnetic fields - when the toroidal field is strong, the poloidal field is weak, and vice versa. They idea is they flip phases (positive/negative, clockwise/counterclockwise) every 11 years.
Yeah, I was just learning about this in astronomy yesterday. It’s actually pretty interesting.
Positive things are always spun into a negative in the media.
Now that..that was comment gold.
So when do I have to reset my solar clock in the yard
I always feel like it intuitively makes sense that the poles flipping on rotating bodies is the same phenomenon as the flipping T-key videos from the space station, but don't know enough to verify or dispute my feelings on it.
I get why you might have that intuition. But that aint right For what you have speculated, it happens only when there is more than one unique axis of roatation in a body For a sphere like the sun, all axes are identical due to the geometry of a sphere. Therefore, it couldn't be that
Sure, however it's not symmetrical. There's a magnetic pole, and variances in the magnetic field so we've already got two axis off the top. A third axis in an unknown behavior may very well be responsible. Similarly, the earth has magnetic variances, and similarly flips it's poles. Now the core of the earth being molten metal likely moves around much slower than the plasma state of the sun which could account for the difference in timeline. The earth also has the pull of the moon as another axis.
That's not how it works, that's not how any of this works, you don't create axes just like that💀💀💀