Talk:Solar maximum

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Astronomy: Solar System Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Low-importance). Weather This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_maximum

at end of first paragraph

what does the following mean? (where the magnetic charge on the poles is the same).

at the end of 22 year cycle will both poles have same magnetic charge or will they, the poles have the same charge they started with 22 year before?

below is entire paragraph:

Solar maximum is contrasted with solar minimum. Solar maximum is the period when the sun's magnetic field lines are the most distorted due to the magnetic field on the solar equator rotating at a slightly faster pace than at the solar poles. The sun takes about 17 years to go from one solar maximum to another and 22 years to complete a full cycle (where the magnetic charge on the poles is the same —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.55.53.244 (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Agreed... Was going to say the same thing. There are no magnetic monopoles, thus no such thing as a "magnetic charge." I think that what they meant to say was that the field configuration / alignment of the sun flips ever 11 years (magnetic North changes to magnetic South and vice versa), making for a 22 year "full cycle" of the sun (getting back to the original magnetic field alignment). It should really be edited for technical correctness. Mgmirkin (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
• A Star with two North Poles
• From Solar cycle:

"The physical basis of the solar cycle was elucidated in the early twentieth century by George Ellery Hale and collaborators, who in 1908 showed that sunspots were strongly magnetized (this was the first detection of magnetic fields outside the Earth), and in 1919 went on to show that the magnetic polarity of sunspot pairs:

• Is always the same in a given solar hemisphere throughout a given sunspot cycle;
• Is opposite across hemispheres throughout a cycle;
• Reverses itself in both hemispheres from one sunspot cycle to the next.

Hale's observations revealed that the solar cycle is a magnetic cycle with an average duration of 22 years. However, because very nearly all manifestations of the solar cycle are insensitive to magnetic polarity, it remains common usage to speak of the "11-year solar cycle".

Half a century later, the father-and-son team of Harold Babcock and Horace Babcock showed that the solar surface is magnetized even outside of sunspots; that this weaker magnetic field is to first order a dipole; and that this dipole also undergoes polarity reversals with the same period as the sunspot cycle (see graph below). These various observations established that the solar cycle is a spatiotemporal magnetic process unfolding over the Sun as a whole."

• So, in answer to your question: the "polarity" of sunspots in each hemisphere flips approximately every 11 years at solar minimum and the overall magnetic dipole of the sun flips approximately every 11 years at solar maximum. The "full" cycle is simply two flips of the overall magnetic dipole of the sun (approximately 22 years). Or, I suppose one could define it as two flips of the sunspot poles (if one prefers to make the solar minimum the "start" point of the cycle, rather than the maximum). Mgmirkin (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think it should be notated here that the information which had been included here as a reference link to corroborate one POV titled "Storm Warning" was written by an individual that merely writes articles for Science@NASA(unable to verify the true identity or validity of this author) and in this particular article a Wiki editor made sure that any reference to the other, much accredited scientist was carefully excluded so that there was only the reference of the year 2012, to push a POV in this article and take away some of its neutrality.

It should also be noted that there were several different years in the past that exhibited not only extreme -maximums-, but also extreme -minimums-, those dates were also included in the 'Storm Warning' article and carefully excluded here.

So far listed there was only Mausumi Dikpati--notated on her homepage as a ScientistII--, whatever that is, but that David Hathaway who has actually been around the solar physics block--Ph.D., Astrophysics, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO., 1979,M.S., Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO., 1975, B.S., Astronomy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA., 1973 had been carefully kept out of this article.

I believe that somehow other references that can be found with other scientists/scientific data should be included here if at all possible.

So anyone interested, please let's work on the neutrality of this article(I will also review the solar minimum article's neutrality), and if there is a place to set it here within Wiki for special editing, please, please put it there for anyone who has the knowledge to do that--I don't, which I can readily admit...*grin* Thanks all for reading and happy editing Brattysoul (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I updated the article to conform with the latest information from NASA. I also took out an erroneous mention of the sun's magnetic poles being the "same." I added a ref in the first paragraph to a nice page from NASA illustrating solar maximums and minimums. rpbird

Add Solar storm delivers a glancing blow to Earth – and a warning by Mark Clayton, Christian Science Monitor June 9, 2011 excerpt "The solar storm caused by a massive eruption two days ago arrived at Earth Wednesday, but it was only a taste of what scientists say might come – and the world is not prepared."?

The first confirmed "solar tsunami" occurred in 1859. British astronomer Richard Carrington was busily sketching sunspots through his telescope when he observed a brilliant, oval-shaped light erupting from the sun that lasted several minutes. Days later, telegraph systems worldwide went haywire. There was so much geomagnetically induced current on the lines that some telegraph operators reported being able to use the systems without batteries. In other cases, telegraph offices caught fire and wires melted. The northern lights could be seen as far south as Cuba. More than 150 years later, the US and most other nations are not well prepared to weather a truly massive solar storm like the "Carrington event," many experts say.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I added a wikilink to the "Solar storm of 1859" article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

With the aim to bring relevance to the subject in the eyes of many casual viewers who look the subject up to answer specific questions and inform them regarding issues such as technological vulnerably, the comment regarding visibility of the 1859 event in Rome is very good.

But, I understand aurora were visible in Havana, Cuba as well. at 22 degrees north, far lower than Rome at 42. I won't add this until someone confirms this. Please.

Thank you.

Jerrywickey (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

to deny a correlation of solar activity with earths is an intellectual breach. energy generated by solar flares striking earth absolutely affects seismic / volcanic activity, NOAA, states potential major seismic events are likely this solar maximum. worst case scenario, disruption of earths power grids. several scientists conclude the existence of this casual relationship...im limited in time to expand this today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radikaler88 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply