Magnetic Shock

[vukcevic]

It is widely known that during Maunder minimum, the Sun went spotless during 1640-1710 period. Experiments and measurements carried by Livingstone & Penn suggest that something similar may occur around 2020. Latest measurements show drop in intensity of magnetic field below 2000Gauss, this causes a reduction in sunspot contrast and consequently in visibility of sunspots. It is speculated that something similar occured during Maunder Minimum, i.e. magnetic field fell to low values but subsequently recovered. Whatever happened, it is obvious that it was a magnetism of one kind or another involved.
Was this just limited to the Sun only?
There is a strong possibility that the event was widespread trough at least the inner solar system if not further.
Using data from the Institute of Geophysics at the ETH Zurich, one of leading research centres for geomagnetism, I compiled this composite graph:

It shows 360deg sweep of the Earth’s magnetic field along 85degN parallel, at steps of 10deg at time intervals of 10 years.
The peak is coincident with the Maunder minimum, followed by sudden drop with a ring reminiscent of a dumped oscillation of a resonant system hit by an impulse. I am tempted to conclude that part or whole of solar system in mid 1600’s suffered a severe magnetic shock. I will be getting in touch with the above institution to verify event by double-checking their database.

[Lloyd]

Vukcevic:

[The graph] shows 360 deg sweep of the Earth’s magnetic field along 85 deg N parallel, at steps of 10 deg at time intervals of 10 years. The peak is coincident with the Maunder minimum, followed by sudden drop with a ring reminiscent of a dumped oscillation of a resonant system hit by an impulse. I am tempted to conclude that part or whole of solar system in mid 1600’s suffered a severe magnetic shock.

* What does the Y-axis of the graph represent? Earth's magnetic field strength is said to be about .5 gauss.
* What do you mean by 10 degree steps? Is that every 10 degrees longitude along the 85th north parallel?
* What do you mean by a ring? What's a dumped oscillation? By resonant system, do you mean the solar system? By impulse, do you mean a magnetic spike or pulse? What might produce such an impulse?

Latest measurements show drop in intensity of magnetic field below 2000 Gauss... It is speculated that something similar occurred during Maunder Minimum...

* I don't see 2,000 gauss on the graph anywhere. Would would cause a drop in intensity of the said magnetic field? And what evidence is there that such a drop occurred before the Maunder Minimum?

[Osmosis]

I wonder if it was 2000 gammas (nanoTesla)? That's pretty low.

[vukcevic]

Y scale is in nanoTesla, and represent Earth’s vertical (Z) component, it continuously varies in time and along both latitude and longitude, while the first paragraph obviously refers to the Sun and its current field strength of ~2000G (1 Gauss=10 000 nanoTesla). You could consider Solar system as a resonant one (see Titus Bode law). Answers for the rest you can find in wikipedia or similar.

[moses]

So this graph is based on ice core Be levels ?
Now if the Earth gets warmer then would you
expect greater Be in the atmosphere ? Yes !
So all this graph could be showing is that
there was a long cold spell with the Maunder
Minimum in the middle of this cold spell.
Mo

[vukcevic]

No this graph is based on actual numerous measurements of declination, inclination, and strength of field (using compass and deep needle), based on ships' logs. Once there is a sufficient number of measurements, an algorithm is used to calculate relatively accurate value of any of the parameters anywhere on the Earth’s surface.

[Lloyd]

* So the first graph shows how many degrees off of true north compasses read over a few centuries.
They read -30 degrees or more off at:
NE Canada, Greenland, NW Atlantic Ocean
E Antarctica, S. Indian Ocean
They read +30 deg or more off at:
Alaska, NW Canada
W Antarctica
* That graph doesn't seem pertinent to our topic.
* The second graph shows changing magnetic field intensity over Earth's surface for the last 2 centuries. [I guess electrons that make the aurorae are attracted mainly to the areas of greatest field intensity.] The intensity doesn't seem to have changed much overall. Is there a way to put the data for your graph in your first post into the form of the second graph in your last post, so we can see the changing field intensity all the way back to the 1600s? In the original graph it seems a little deceptive, because only the top of the curve is shown. The amount of change would look much smaller, if the Y-axis went to zero, instead of only down to 54,000 nT. I still don't see the 2,000 that you referred to.

[vukcevic]

There were some early measurements on the American continent, more numerous in the Atlantic as far north as coast of Norway, Iceland and Labrador sea, presumably than mathematical interpolations are made using current knowledge of the Earth’s dipole properties. Only after 1700 there are sufficient measurements in the Northern hemisphere, that accuracy can be relied on. Declination/inclination over same period as well as maps of the magnetic pole movement you can find here:
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/uplo ... Dating.pdf
Two movies came ready made.
You can look at it this way: Z field fell from a max of ~66 down to ~56 at present or ~15%.
The above data is used by all geomagnetic institutions around the world, so one has to assume that it is the best available. Reference to drop of 10-11 % since 1800 is widely quoted, but according to the graph shown, that is not the case for the North hemisphere. Largest drop happened in the South Atlantic (SA anomaly).
Numbers for 2000 are: the bottom line ends at 55,767 and the top 57,665 nT.

[moses]

How long does the magnetic impulse act ? I'm thinking
along the lines of 500 years. And at the maximum of
this impulse is the Maunder Minimum. This would be a
time when the change in current coming into the Sun
produces conditions of no sunspots. Thus I see the
current coming into the Solar System will vary or cycle.
Mo

[vukcevic]

Regretfully, I have no further knowledge or info on the subject.

[junglelord]

Thats quite interesting....

[earls]

Those animations above clearly show "magnetic reconnection", no?

What do you call it when the field lines merge?

[mharratsc]

Those lines are simply indicating bands of varying intensity in a a field.

Imagine you were trying to convey to someone on a flat piece of paper how a streetlamp looked on a foggy night. You want to convey how this foggy glow surrounds the incandescent bulb, and how the level of illumination fell off with distance 3-dimensionally in a sphere the further away from the bulb you are.
You start with a graphic of the bulb, and you determine that you will use lines to indicate how the strength of illumination falls off at say- 5 centimeter incriments (you don't want to have to draw quite that many lines!)

In your schematic therefore, you determine that you will attach to each line a number corresponding to lumens of light of each 'band' (remember- you're actually looking at a 3-dimensional sphere of light, but you've 'squashed' it flat for the purpose of your drawing), an starting at the highest lumens next to the bulb (brightest) to the lowest lumens (dimmest) on the outside of your glow diagram.

Now- here is where modern astronomy gets this completely messed up- are the lines in your schematic real, or just a tool you used to convey brightness in a 3-dimensional sphere on a 2-dimensional piece of paper?

Modern astronomy would have you believe your lines were real objects!

No joke. The lines in the above diagrams are nothing more than tools used to convey intensity of a 3-dimensional field on a 2-dimensional image. If the lines appear to 'merge' that simply means that a particular area changed in intensity fluidly, because there never were any real lines to separate or join to begin with!

Hope that makes sense that way... and I hope that Vukcevic and Lloyd and other professionals will forgive this gross oversimplification of the matter (please note that I'm no scientist myself!)

By the way- I'm really impressed by the work you've been posting here recently, Vukcevic!

Mike H.

[earls]

The lines represent a boundary between intensities, no? The boundaries change as the pockets of intensity change in strength.

[Lloyd]

Earl:

The lines represent a boundary between intensities, no?

* No, the lines represent magnetic intensity contours, like elevation on a contour map. You don't have boundaries at 100 feet above sea level and 200 feet etc.