Sunspots Today: A Cheshire Cat – New Essay from Livingston and Penn

13 06 2009

This arrived in my email tonight from Bill Livingston. It is hot off the press, date June 11th. I believe WUWT readers will be some of the first to see this. – Anthony

Guest Essay by:
W. Livingston, National Solar Observatory, 950 N. Cherry Ave, Tucson AZ 85718;
M. Penn, National Solar Observatory, Tucson AZ

Physical conditions in the infrared at 1.5 microns, including maximum magnetic field strength and temperature, have been observed spectroscopically in 1391 sunspots 1990 to 2009 (1). We emphasize the quantitative difference between our IR sunspot measurements and the visible light results from most solar magnetographs employed world-wide. The latter are compromised by scattered light and measure flux, not field strength. A lower limit of ~1800 Gauss is required to form spot umbra. The umbral maximum field strength has declined over the above interval, perhaps because spots have on average diminished in size. The present condition of solar activity minimum has more spotless days than since the 1910s (2). The Cheshire Cat behavior is related to magnetic surface fields often appearing without accompanying dark spots.

Sunspots recently are behaving like a Cheshire Cat: the smile is there (magnetic fields) but the body is missing (no dark markings). We are unsure about past cycles but at present sunspots, with their usual umbrae and penumbrae, are failing to materialize. For hundreds of years the Sun has shown an approximately periodic 11-year alteration in its activity where the number of sunspots increases and then decreases. Sunspots are dark regions on the solar disk with magnetic field strengths greater than 1500-1800 Gauss. The last sunspot maximum occurred in 2001. Magnetically active sunspots at that time (Figure 1A) produced powerful flares, caused large geomagnetic disturbances, and disrupted some space-based technology.

Livingston-Penn-Chesire_Fig1A

Figure 1a. An image of a sunspot from near the maximum of the last solar cycle, cycle 23, taken at the McMath-Pierce telescope on 24 October 2003. The sunspots clearly show a dark central umbra surrounded by a brighter, filamentary penumbra. The magnetic fields seen here range from 1797 to 3422 Gauss.

At present, presumably leaving a deep solar minimum, nothing more than tiny spots, or “pores”, have been seen for some time (again
Figure 1B).

Livingston-Penn-Chesire_Fig1B

Figure 1b. An image of a pore – a tiny sunspot with no penumbral structure – taken from the MDI instrument on the SOHO spacecraft, 11 January 2009; this is an example of what we observe today at solar minimum. The larger pore had a magnetic field of 1969 Gauss. Presently, the solar surface is mostly devoid of spots. Both images have the same spatial scale, and are roughly 360 Mm horizontally.

In the current solar minimum the number of spotless days has not been equaled since 1914 (2), see Figure 2. Some look at this figure and feel reassured; this has
happened before. Others sense abnormality. Read the rest of this entry »





Tom Nelson makes me laugh

13 06 2009

I busted out laughing when I saw this on Tom Nelson’s blog.

His title was “For climate hucksters, two inconvenient Google trends”.

I never think about this sort of stuff, but it was darn funny.





Online Petition: The next significant solar minimum should be called “The Eddy Minimum”

13 06 2009
If "The Eddy Minimum" seems right to you for the name of the next solar minimum, sign the petition

If "The Eddy Minimum" seems right to you for the name of the next significant solar minimum, please consider signing the petition.

Link to sign the petition (don’t use handles please)

Jack Eddy was a solar scientist who discovered the sunspot period known as “Maunder Minimum” in the 1970’s, and despite intense academic pressure of the consensus then, argued that this demonstrated that our sun was not constant, but indeed a slightly variable star.

A humble man, he didn’t even name his discovery after himself as some scientists are known to do.

Jack Eddy recently passed away, as announced on WUWT here

Fellow solar astronomer and friend Dr. Leif Svalgaard announced his plan to present this idea formally in comments there: Read the rest of this entry »





Results: Lab experiment regarding CO2 “snow” in Antarctica at -113°F (-80.5°C) – not possible

13 06 2009
Frozen CO2 at the poles of Mars - but not possible on Earth

Frozen CO2 at the poles of Mars - but not possible on Earth

A couple of days ago WUWT carried a story, talking about intense cold in Antarctica, carbon dioxide, and the icecap of Mars. This one passage stirred up a significant debate:

According to Weather Underground, Vostok, Antarctica is forecast to reach -113F on Friday.  That is four degrees below the freezing point of CO2 and would cause dry (CO2) ice to freeze directly out of the air.

It seemed (at the time) a reasonable statement. The freezing point of CO2 is  -109.3 degrees Fahrenheit (-78.5 degrees C). There’s been mentions of this supposed phenomenon of CO2 freezing out of the air before on other blogs and websites. One of the best examples was even an entry in the website “ask a scientist” where the question of CO2 freezing out of the air was posed, and the answer from an Argonne National Laboratory scientist seemed to indicate that CO2 could indeed precipitate as a solid from the air if the temperature was low enough at Earth’s south polar ice cap, specifically at Vostok Station, which holds the record for the lowest surface temperature recorded on Earth at −89.2°C (−128.6°F)

Certainly, at least some of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at the poles does freeze out during the winter. However, there is not enough frozen out to accumulate to any extent at the present.

David R. Cook
Atmospheric Research Section
Environmental Research Division
Argonne National Laboratory

So, it seemed possible. But as WUWT commenters soon pointed out, temperature is only part of the equation needed to deposit CO2 as a solid from the free atmosphere at that temperature.

Read the rest of this entry »