2015
DOI: 10.1134/s001679321508023x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Eleven-year cyclicity of the sun on the 2000-year time scale

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
3
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
1
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Figure 3 shows the distribution function for the computed cycle periods. The distribution is similar to the observations-based results of Nagovitsyn et al (2015). The mean duration of computed cycles P cyc = 10.9 years.…”
Section: Cycle Periodssupporting
confidence: 84%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Figure 3 shows the distribution function for the computed cycle periods. The distribution is similar to the observations-based results of Nagovitsyn et al (2015). The mean duration of computed cycles P cyc = 10.9 years.…”
Section: Cycle Periodssupporting
confidence: 84%
“…The correlation time of fluctuations in the BL mechanism for a generation of the poloidal magnetic field is close to the solar rotation period. This conclusion follows from a comparison of the statistics of computed dynamo-cycle periods with the distributions of periods of 36 directly observed and 119 reconstructed (Nagovitsyn et al 2015) solar cycles. Fluctuations in the BLtype α-effect induce asymmetry in magnetic cycles of the dynamo model with the rise time of simulated cycles being on average shorter than the time of decline.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 82%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…noaa.gov/stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/sunspotnumbers/cycle-data/table cycle-dates maximum-minimum. txt) and with 119 periods reconstructed by Nagovitsyn et al (2015) from activity proxies give the correlation time τ ≈ P rot (Kitchatinov et al 2018). The discussion to follow concerns, therefore, the case of σ = 3 and τ /P rot = 1 from Table 1, which is closest to these estimations.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 79%