While the sun still struggles to form cycle 24 spots like seen in this weak plage area (upper right) in today’s SOHO MDI and Magnetograms (shown below) Paul Stanko of NOAA writes to tell me of an interesting development in his tracking of the International Sunspot Number (ISN).
Paul writes:
My running mean of the International Sunspot Number for 2009 just dipped below 1.00. For anything comparable you now need to go back before 1913 (which scored a 1.43) which could mean we’re now competing directly with the Dalton Minimum.
Just in case you’d like another tidbit, here is something that puts our 20 to 30 day spotless runs in perspective… the mother of all spotless runs (in the heart of the Maunder Minimum, of course!) was from October 15, 1661 to August 2, 1671. It totaled 3579 consecutive spotless days, all of which had obs.
Errant counting of sunspecks from Catainia aside, it appears that we haven’t seen anything like this in modern history.
We live in interesting times.
OT, but…
Hello.
My name is Jim, and I’m fat. I cause global warming.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517264,00.html
JimB
If, as many here believe, there is a greater influence from the Sun on climate than the warmists give it credit for, then there is probably reason for concern. Interesting times indeed, and that is a curse in some cultures.
Does it really matter how many ‘spotless’ days we have in a row? I would think the overall activity means more. How many spots per month or year. And size of the spots. Tiny specs don’t do much.
Without spots, we get a bit less UV. In normal times, we get a bigger dose on a roughly 11 year cycle. In quiet times, that UV is missing. What are the long term effects? It has to have some impact, large or small, probably biological. What grows and what does not?
This is really big news, but does not fit current theories, so no reporting in the major news outlets.
And you know, cycle 24 is just about ready to launch and all will return to normal… and support the “nothing wrong with the sun” theory.
Curious if we will see a definite cooling trend of the oceans followed by a flat line or maybe a dip in the Mauna Loa CO2 readings.
Hi anthony.
It’s seems that the sunspot there is today…
http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/images/latest_mdi_igram_thumbnail.gif
now i’m waiting if it ‘ll live enough to be count by noaa
Simon
What kind of equipment did they use back in the 1600’s to measure sun spots?I feel sure that some of the sun specks we have had over the past few years would not have shown up back then.
JimB (07:42:12) :
“OT, but…
Hello.
My name is Jim, and I’m fat. I cause global warming.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517264,00.html
JimB”
It’s the Sun Jim.. No one takes the Sun seriously!
It would be interesting to know if somebody has calculated spotless days not taking into consideration those specks and other phantoms some have counted as sunspots.
Andy posted an article on sunspots … cue a spot in 5 … 4 … 3 …
Of course if this doesn’t work then I’m going to get really worried.
Re: Retired Engineer
I am guessing spotless days are a little less prone to the vagaries of what to call a sun spot. There have been a number of ‘sunspot’ assignments that were vigorously questioned here. Then there’s the issue of whether a spot qualifies as a ‘group’ where it counts as 10 spots. Thus, it would seem to me that spotless days/year would be much less affected by a zealous sun spot counter than total sun spot number.
the mother of all spotless runs (in the heart of the Maunder Minimum, of course!) was from October 15, 1661 to August 2, 1671. It totaled 3579 consecutive spotless days, all of which had obs.
There were not observations on all days. That is myth. When Hoyt and Schatten compiled their group sunspot number they vastly overstated their case of continuous observations. When an observer in foggy, rainy London (especially during the Little Ice Age!) exclaimed: “I have just seen a spot, having not seen one in three years”, it is false to claim that there were ~1000 observations (one every day, rain or shine) with no spots.
I’m with Terry. How do we know the sunspot data from the Seventeenth Century?
Is it from recorded direct (or indirect to preserve eyesight) observation? Or are we talking about a proxy?
I think that 100 years ago, the last spot that would be counted was in november…
so the spotless days in a row would be about 150…
simon
Sorry if it is explained before, but I believe that stratospheric ozone production is due to UV light breaking O2 into O radicals, and then these radicals react with more O2 generating ozone (O3) Then, if there is less UV light, Does it mean that the ozone production decreases in spotless sun times?
“which could mean we’re now competing directly with the Dalton Minimum.”
Hearing an urgent knock at the door, the fat lady applies a final stroke of mascara. “Last call. Showtime!”
Lose the ‘could’ Paul, it’s time to clear the fallen from the field.
There is a tiny spot!!
Out, damned spot! Out I say! one, two! (days)
I agree with comments about bias in observations, and I have also noticed that many have asked the same questions regarding past methods etc and no-one can seem to answer them..
Unique times indeed, There is now a flurry of plagues so perhaps the cycle will start it’s uptick*rolls eyes*.
Seriously though, what was the largest image of the sun that observations in the past (pre satellite used to scan for spots)? Surely smaller than the current images…
TERRY46 (07:58:26) :
What kind of equipment did they use back in the 1600’s to measure sun spots?I feel sure that some of the sun specks we have had over the past few years would not have shown up back then.
Lief has answered this question probably 1000 times! Maybe Lief could do a “frequently asked questions” page…would save a lot of typing.
For noaa is spotless today too!
http://daltonsminima.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/il-noaa-mette-0-anche-oggi/
Incredible the diffrence between Noaa and sidc that probabilly will count another time the spek of Catania!
The BBC has an article on sunspots today http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8008473.stm
I particularly like the baffling and simplistic comments…
Also, Leif Svalgaard (08:15:59) :
Very good point on cloudy days decreasing historical sunspot counts. This combined with the improvement in measurement technology, makes comparisons between historical and current sunspots numbers suspect at best.
Interesting too, the Arctic ice graph here is currently showing record ice since 2003. The ENSO index is hovering around 6, (so not quite the El Nino forming that Hansen expects).
Here in South Africa, the weather is unbearable, rainy, windy, and Arctic (12’C – cold for us!) and snow is falling in the Drakensberg and Lesotho… not pleasant for tomorow’s elections…
Anecdotal evidence yes, but still people are a little confused with the failed predictions of heat, drought and famine made a few years back when summer actually continued into late May.
Retired Engineer (07:47:39)
“Does it really matter how many ’spotless’ days we have in a row?”
I fully agree. It is the cumulative effect of the total period that matters.
The occasional fleck has no effect on the solar output.
While I appreciate the idea that a quiter sun may lower temperatures ( heck the sun is the main supplier of radiation ) The climate is a complex system with many more variables then just the sun, or the moon, or cloud formation etc… While I am interested to see how long this lack of sun spots occurs do we not know already what to expect from it? I ask only in the sense of how much lower does the temperature typicaly get during an 11 year cycle when spots are on the low? While it is easy to say, “Its the sun, Stupid” I do not accept easy answers. I do not know if CO2 is the main contributer to warming, I do not know if less spots on the sun will contribute to cooling. There are far too many variables.
Now I know you can point back to Maunder Minimum and say there is a direct correlation but unfortunatly it is only one datapoint that I am aware of that demonstrated this extreme drop in temperature along with the sun being spotless. Did the temperature get colder each year the sun was without spots? Was there some thing else going on? Was there some other underlying output drop from the sun that caused the temperature decrease… Was it only in North America ( sorry for my ignorance )? I mean while I would love to link the sun directly to the current drop in temperature doing so does not nessicarily explain the increase in temperature over the last couple decades ( though Anthony showing how biased a sampling we have been attaining from North American Temperature stations has helped explain percieved increase and real articles about the urban heat island effects seem to help as well)
I suppose my only point here is I don’t feel comfortable blaming only the sun. The Sun is important to be sure but I have not seen it demonstrated to my satisfaction that I should be overly concerned with a spotless sun for any given amount of time.
Re Retired Engineer’s questions about the effects of lessened UV…
Since we can use UV to sterlize things, I’m thinking that solar minima cause more sickness because more harmful germs survive.
“There were not observations on all days. That is myth. When Hoyt and Schatten compiled their group sunspot number they vastly overstated their case of continuous observations. When an observer in foggy, rainy London (especially during the Little Ice Age!) exclaimed: “I have just seen a spot, having not seen one in three years”, it is false to claim that there were ~1000 observations () with no spots.”
I have to differ, you do not necessary have to watch “one every day, rain or shine” sun spots track across the sun over several days. Once everyday may have been difficult, but once every 3 days or even once a week is not impossible. And yes these scientists were very dedicated and watched for every spot, but I doubt specks could have been counted.