Solar maximum is years past, yet the sun has been remarkably activ

NASA Science News for November 12, 2003

Solar maximum is years past, yet the sun has been remarkably active
lately. Is the sunspot cycle broken?

FULL STORY at

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...htm?list768530

Sam Worley posted:
Solar maximum is years past, yet the sun has been remarkably active
lately. Is the sunspot cycle broken?

From the article:

"Nothing's wrong," reassures Hathaway. The sun isn't about to explode, nor is
the sunspot cycle broken. "These latest sunspots were whoppers," he allows,
"but sunspot counts averaged over many weeks are still declining as predicted.
We're still on course for a solar minimum in 2006."

--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 11th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 18-23, 2004, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

Sam Wormley wrote in message ...
NASA Science News for November 12, 2003

Solar maximum is years past, yet the sun has been remarkably active
lately. Is the sunspot cycle broken?

FULL STORY at

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...htm?list768530



Must be the gravity of that danged ol' Planet X. If you look at Nutty Nancy's
website, it's apparently stalled between us and the sun. Been there since May.

Thanks Sam,

If you read into the data it actually seems "normal" for some of this
activity to happen after the solar maximum.

What causes the 11 year cycle of sunspot activity? I have seen a lot of
material "about" the 11 year cycle but never anything about "what causes"
the cycle. It's interesting that such a large body has such a cycle and I
would be interested in learning more about the reasons behind it. Is this
some sort of internal clock of the suns and if so what does it mean? If not
internal - what external force would influence such a large body in such a
way?

Thanks,

--
Glenn


"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...

NASA Science News for November 12, 2003

Solar maximum is years past, yet the sun has been remarkably active
lately. Is the sunspot cycle broken?

FULL STORY at

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...htm?list768530

Glenn Mulno wrote:

Thanks Sam,

If you read into the data it actually seems "normal" for some of this
activity to happen after the solar maximum.

What causes the 11 year cycle of sunspot activity? I have seen a lot of
material "about" the 11 year cycle but never anything about "what causes"
the cycle. It's interesting that such a large body has such a cycle and I
would be interested in learning more about the reasons behind it. Is this
some sort of internal clock of the suns and if so what does it mean? If not
internal - what external force would influence such a large body in such a
way?

Thanks,

--
Glenn

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...

NASA Science News for November 12, 2003

Solar maximum is years past, yet the sun has been remarkably active
lately. Is the sunspot cycle broken?

FULL STORY at

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...htm?list768530


The Babcock model
http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...r17/17f37.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Babcock+model%22+sun

Glenn Mulno wrote:

Thanks Sam,

If you read into the data it actually seems "normal" for some of this
activity to happen after the solar maximum.

What causes the 11 year cycle of sunspot activity? I have seen a lot of
material "about" the 11 year cycle but never anything about "what causes"
the cycle. It's interesting that such a large body has such a cycle and I
would be interested in learning more about the reasons behind it. Is this
some sort of internal clock of the suns and if so what does it mean? If not
internal - what external force would influence such a large body in such a
way?

Thanks,

--
Glenn

http://rapfast.petcom.com/~john/magfield.gif
They don't know.
That or how the IMF works.