Hale cycle in solar hemispheric radio flux and sunspots: Evidence for a northward shifted relic field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Solar and heliospheric parameters can depict notable differences between the northern and southern hemisphere. Although hemispheric asymmetries of some heliospheric parameters vary systematically with Hale cycle, this is not common for solar parameters. Also, no physical mechanism exists which can explain systematic hemispheric asymmetries. We use a novel method of high heliolatitudes to increase the fraction of one hemisphere in solar 10.7cm radio fluxes and sunspot numbers. We calculate sets of hemispheric high-latitude radio fluxes and sunspot numbers with increasing heliographic latitude during the last 75 years. We also normalise these fluxes by yearly means in order to study their continuous variation. We find that cycle maximum radio fluxes and sunspot numbers in each odd cycle (19, 21, 23) are larger at northern high latitudes, while in all even cycles (18, 20, 22 24) they are larger at southern latitudes. This alternation indicates a new form of Hale cycle variation in solar activity. Hemispheric differences at cycle maxima are 15% for radio flux and 23% for sunspot numbers. The difference is largest during cycle 19 and smallest in cycle 24. Continuous fluxes depict a Hale cycle in both hemispheres, with an opposite phase and amplitude of 5% in north and 4% in south. Hemispheric Hale cycle can be explained if there is a northward directed relic magnetic field, which is shifted northward. In odd cycles, the northern hemisphere is enhanced more than the southern hemisphere and, in even cycles, the northern hemisphere is reduced more than the southern hemisphere. The decrease of asymmetry during the 7 cycles can be explained if the relic shift oscillates at the 210-year Suess/deVries period. Gleissberg cycle consists of one off-equator excursion of the relic. Relic field in the Sun also offers a possibility for century-scale forecasting of solar activity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".