The Sun's magnetic funk continues

Sunspot 1029 had a much larger area total, but the umbra percentage was way down as compared to 1024 in early July. On the one hand, the flux is up and the Activity is up, but the strength or contrast of the spots is down.
Which one is gaining? It looks like the spots are fighting a losing battle.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif
Hathaway prediction updated for November 2009.
SC 24 Max now predicted to be about 76 and occur just before mid 2013.

Very interesting.
Just wish I knew what it all means !!!

Considering that the earth’s magnetic field is undergoing a reversal, perhaps lower solar activity is a good thing.
Speaking of which, despite their infrequency, do pole reversals affect and are they accounted for in the data that is used to record past solar activity?

Here is my compilation of solar cycle 24 forecasts from NASA.
When forecast, date of minimum, peak estimate, date of peak
01/2004- minimum in 1/2007, peak = 160
01/2005- minimum in 1/2007, peak = 145, in 2010
01/2006- minimum in 1/2007, peak = 145, in 2010
01/2007- minimum in 6/2007, peak = 145, in 2010
03/2008- minimum in 6/2008, peak = 130, in 2011.5
01/2009- minimum in 1/2009, peak = 105, in 2012
04/2009- minimum in 4/2009, peak = 104, in 2013
05/2009- minimum in 5/2009, peak = 90, in 2013.5
11/2009- minimum in 5/2009, peak = <50, in ???
Anthony has had a much more visual presentation of this trend, but I've tried to include estimates from much earlier and the most recent comments from Hathaway.

Anthony,
Regarding the step down in Oct 2005.
It appears obvious (to me, at least) that in addition to the dropping smoothed value there was a drop in the variance, the degree of noise in the signal, like a kettle simmering down from a hard boil to a state where just a few bubbles are forming on the bottom. In that case the temperature of the water would not have changed much, but the dynamics of the driver would have changed a lot.
Do you know where this data can be found in a digital format so that I could play with it?

Weakening solar magnetic fields, slower solar winds, slower ramp up for cycle 24, and the prospect for disappearing or ‘invisible’ sunspots — solar scientists must be positively giddy at the prospect of unusual solar activity (at least in terms of recent activity). It is also very refreshing to see disagreements from these same scientists — no consensus here – these are real scientists. It will indeed be interesting to see how this (Livingston & Penn’s ideas) all shakes out as we get closer to 2015.

“No, I don’t know that, and I don’t think so.”
Now I supposed I am confused. Forgive me, but I thought I remembered you saying something maybe a year or two ago along the lines of recent activity being above the typical level. Maybe it was someone else and I am mistaken. I read that letter to Nature and read it as validation of something I thought I had remembered you saying but apparently my recollection failed or I have the context wrong.

Re: my 8:49:57
Nevermind, I see the address is at the top of the chart.

Correction: re: 08:49:57
The source on the graph only has monthly values. Do you know where I can get the actual observed values.

RE: modelers and their predictive skill
Shouldn’t someone be popping the top on a bottle of bubbly for Livingston and Penn? Yes, this is just one data point but it falls just where their model predicts. Who out there isn’t envious?
RE: truncating versus rounding
Seems odd in context of most of what we see here where temperatures are carried out to 3 significant digits on the back of poorly sited and reported data. But many people do this everyday when stating the price they paid for a gallon of gasoline: say, reporting $2.89 when the pump price was $2.899.

Hathaway prediction updated for November 2009.
SC 24 Max now predicted to be about 76 and occur just before mid 2013.
Looks like the Svalgaard effect.

Such a shame that the data is so spotty so to speak.

” Leif Svalgaard (01:00:05) : ”
Looking at the conclusions in the muscheler07qsr paper I noticed this:

The differences between the 10Be records from Greenland and Antarctica for the period after 1950 AD have led to strongly differing conclusions about solar activity in the past (Bard et al., 2000; Usoskin et al., 2003). While the records from Greenland indicate a relatively low 10Be production after 1950 AD this trend is rather opposite in the Antarctic records. The 11-yr averages of the neutron monitor and sunspot data show a relatively stable solar activity during the second part of the 20th century.

Then I remembered having read this:

In the current era, the center of the galaxy is visible from the Earth’s South Pole and not the North Pole. That will eventually reverse due to precession. But in either case, observers on most of the Earth’s surface experience periods of the day during which the galactic center is above the horizon.

Which had me thinking that if we were seeing after 1950 a source of nuclides that originated generally from toward the Galactic center, the South Pole should see “more” of them than the North Pole. This is because of the ecliplic plane’s offset from the Galactic plane and the equatorial plane’s offset from the ecliptic. Basically, the North Pole is “shielded” from the Galactic center. If the majority of nuclides that are the source of Be10 are originating from someplace else, maybe both poles get an equal “dose” but if a source toward the Galactic center becomes the majority contributor, I might expect to see more in Antarctic cores than in Greenland cores.
This leads me to wonder if an average of the two really means anything as they might be apples/oranges. Greenland might currently represent sources of particles originating from areas away from the Galactic center while Antarctic cores would more representative of particles originating from a more local source that is potentially more energetic, potentially greater in concentration, and possibly quite variable.
Going farther down that line of thinking, I might consider Greenland cores to more accurately represent general solar magnetic properties and Antarctic cores to be an amalgamation of solar activity and Galactic core activity. The reason for that being that if you block rays for the Galactic center, I would expect the result to be more indicative of rays arriving generally from all directions whereas Antarctica could be “swamped” by Galactic core activity that could be highly variable even if solar magnetics were static. The amount of rays arriving generally from all directions except the local Galactic center would, to my mind, be more likely to be stable over time (local events notwithstanding) and their modulation more likely to indicate solar magnetics. While the Antarctic cores would indicate solar magnetics AND Galactic center activity.

Glenn (10:28:47) :
We have had 29 SC24 spots. This one makes 30.
There have been a lot of reveresed spots showing up.
SC23 blinkers populating the equator in between the healthy SC24 spots.
SC24 spots that lie at the limits of latitude spreads are the norm.
What does it mean? It means this cycle is goofy.
It’s had too much to drink and is weaving all over the place.
In between binges, it ‘sleeps it off’.
Shhh…. don’t wake it up too early, it’s likely hung over.

“Leif Svalgaard (08:49:55) :
The high latitude region is probably just a ‘reversed’ SC24 region [this happens for about 1 in 30 groups]. The equatorial one is Southern hemisphere spilling over. These anomalies occur from time to time, especially for small groups that re moved around by the roiling convection.”
This is likely true, however what is also interesting is that the largest SC24 spot so far (1029) was so near to the equator. It seems as though many SC 24 spots have been unusual so far.
“Dennis Wingo (10:03:42) :
Hathaway prediction updated for November 2009.
SC 24 Max now predicted to be about 76 and occur just before mid 2013.
Looks like the Svalgaard effect.”
Predictions may change if ramp-up doesn’t kick up a gear.
Leif, I’m sure this has been asked before, but what are your thoughts for SC 25? Weaker or more or less the same as SC 24?

Leif Svalgaard (13:39:59) :
James F. Evans (13:38:00) :
Is there any relationship between the observation & measurement of the two magnetic North poles and the current solar minimum in conjuction with the depressed magnetic field?
No, the Earth’s internal magnetic field has nothing to do with solar activity.
_______________________________
Okay.
Do you know what is causing the two magentic North poles?

re: crosspatch (11:30:07)
In the current era, the center of the galaxy is visible from the Earth’s South Pole and not the North Pole. That will eventually reverse due to precession. But in either case, observers on most of the Earth’s surface experience periods of the day during which the galactic center is above the horizon.
I have read and understand Leif’s statement that GCR’s are directionally scrambled.
However…
*IF* Svensmark is correct, and *given* the differential heating of the globe due to disproportionate landmass distribution N Hemisphere vs S Hemisphere, would (could?) this explain ice ages, which are tied to the precession of the equinox?
Equinox precesses, more GCR hit the N half increasing cloudiness, which due to higher landmass cools the globe past the…ahh…uhm…”tipping point?”
Jus’ thinkin’ out loud here…

I vote for “New Age chiliastic disasturbationists” as quote of the week. Also, that could be the name we select for our new rock band.

Leif Svalgaard (15:17:03) :
“Richard (14:29:28) :
By that you mean it is not caused by solar activity but presumably the two interact.
‘Interact’ is not the right word. The Earth’s field basically stops the solar wind at the ‘front door’. Because the Earth’s field is 10,000 times stronger than solar wind field there are always plenty of magnetic field lines that reconnect with the solar wind field and generate electric currents causing aurorae and magnetic storms. The solar wind does not modify the Earth’s internal field or control its development and evolution.”
Dr. Svalgaard, does the solar wind have additional effects in addition to generating electric currents causing aurorae and magnetic storms? Do the electrical currents reach the land or ocean surface? How powerful are these currents? As you mentioned earlier, an electrical current will generate heat in the material it is running through….
Dan Murphy

I have my own version of L&P that is not restricted by telescope time.
Its called the Layman’s Sunspot Darkness Ratio. I use a simple method, measure the amount of pixels 0-70 in the green channel, then measure how many pixels between 0-34 then calculate the darkness percentage. I do this at the peak of the spot/group. Below is a chart for all SC24 spots above 23 pixels.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sc24_darkness.png
The data range is smaller but the trend looks different to L&P

Does anyone know where or how to get up-to-date “east-to-west motion speed versus latitude” diagrams produced by GONG helioseismology observations as show at: http://gong.nso.edu/news/solarmystery/ ? The images/diagrams from the 17 June 2009 press release only go to mid 2008. It would be nice if those were updated on a regular basis to have a different point-of-view as to what is happening with the Sun.
Jeff

NASA recounts the most powerful geomagnetic storm: “A Super Solar Flare” known as the Carrington flare.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/06may_carringtonflare.htm
September 1, 1859:
“Just before dawn the next day, skies all over planet Earth erupted in red, green, and purple auroras so brilliant that newspapers could be read as easily as in daylight. Indeed, stunning auroras pulsated even at near tropical latitudes over Cuba, the Bahamas, Jamaica, El Salvador, and Hawaii.”
“Even more disconcerting, telegraph systems worldwide went haywire. Spark discharges shocked telegraph operators and set the telegraph paper on fire. Even when telegraphers disconnected the batteries powering the lines, aurora-induced electric currents in the wires still allowed messages to be transmitted.”
This “mixing” of the solar wind (coronal mass ejection) and the Earth’s magnetosphere and the resultant damage it can do to electrical equipment is one reason among many why NASA does study the interaction between the solar wind and the Earth’s magnetosphere.
On the good side with a lower magnetic strength, as is the present case, it is less likely a gigantic sized coronal mass ejection will hit the Earth wreaking havoc to Man’s sophisticated equipment.
An equivalent sized CME to the 1859 Carrington flare would likely disable all satellites in orbit and a lot of ground based equipment, too.
Likely a tremendous sized breach opened up in the Earth’s magnetosphere, larger than the one observed & measured recently by NASA.

Don’t know about the 1029 dot, but hopefully Livingston can get a measurement on the latest spot, now measuring 23 x 10E6 on GONG Udaipur image 2009/11/06 03:24UT.
Would like to see how this reversed polarity SC24?/SC23? wannabe shapes up.

Evans wrote: “Today, we know the Chapman-Ferraro model is wrong.”
Dr. Svalgaard responds: “This is the kind of nonsense that eventually will give WUWT and bad name and reputation.”
In your opinion Dr. Svalgaard.
But why would it give WUWT a bad reputation? It’s not Mr. Watts opinion.
Besides the NASA release speaks for itself and supports my opinion:
See, Science @ NASA: A Giant Breach in Earth’s Magnetic Field:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/16dec_giantbreach.htm
Are you implying I should be banned because I express opinions consistent with NASA?
Or does it just bug you that I provide links to scientific evidence that contradicts your opinion?
I don’t know Dr. Svalgaard, is that consistent with the circles you travel in: If an opinion differs from yours and that person won’t knuckle under to your bullying or won’t shut up (and has supporting evidence as backup), well, then his opinion should be suppressed?
You sound as bad as some of the AGWers.

“The direction from where the GCRs are coming is completely scrambled after having gone through the heliosphere.”
Generally true but the amount of “scrambling” depends on the energy of the particle. From NMDB:

Cosmic rays penetrating into the Heliosphere interact with the solar wind. Very energetic charged particles will remain unaffected – they traverse the solar wind as if it were not there. But cosmic rays at moderate energies, say up to some tens of GeV, do feel its influence. Not through collisions, since the gas is far too dilute for direct collisions between a cosmic ray particle with a solar wind particle. But the varying magnetic field makes the trajectory of cosmic rays with moderate energies deviate strongly from a straight line.
We can understand this by using the elementary description of charged particle propagation in a uniform magnetic field. When the magnetic field varies in time, the particle encounters rapidly changing magnetic field line directions along its trajectory, and therefore has directions of propagation that change all the time. One says that the particle is scattered by the magnetic field irregularities.

Now if one were to see more Be10 at the South Pole than at the North Pole, one would have only a limited number of possible reasons. Either there is some mechanism that makes the depositing of Be10 more efficient in Antarctica since 1950, or there are more particles arriving on that area. Lower energy particles should arrive from all directions as they are scattered by the magnetic fields from the solar wind, CMEs, etc.
What I thought was that if there were more particles arriving at one place than another place, then maybe they are higher energy particles that are not (as) affected by the heliosphere. Now if I were asked to pick the most likely source of high energy particles, I would pick the Galactic center. It is (relatively) close and does at times become quite active. Various point sources such as novae do happen but are unpredictable. The Galactic center should be over the long term a more consistent source of high energy particles.
So, given that for some reason after 1950 the cores in Antarctica show higher levels of Be10 than Greenland cores do and given that particles should arrive from all directions except for high energy particles, and given that there is a likely source of high energy particles that is visible from Antarctica but not Greenland, I wondered if that might be the reason.

“I don’t know why the NH would be more sensitive to orbital forcing than the SH”
The North Pole is surrounded by land. The South Pole is on land which is surrounded by water. Now imagine you begin to freeze the Arctic Ocean. The channel that provides Pacific Ocean water to the Arctic is shallow. Once the ocean level drops to a certain point, that flow of water is cut off. The ice spreads (relatively) quickly across the continental land masses and the temperatures become very cold. The Arctic freezes all the way to the bottom over a considerable area and water circulation is greatly reduced.
In Antarctica the ice extent can increase somewhat but probably not much more than it already is. It won’t extend much past where you still have a good deal of sunlight in Winter. There is still ocean circulation around the continent. Water circulates a lot of heat. Once the Arctic remains frozen over for the entire summer, temperatures plummet across the land masses. Cold winds blow from Siberia to Alberta to Nebraska with nothing warming them in between.
The Southern system is harder to change. You have to get it a whole lot colder to make a small difference than you do with the Northern system.
Once the Bering Strait is cut off and the Newfoundland Banks emerge, Florida becomes huge, more land is exposed in the Caribbean, the East Coast of the US extends out to the continental shelf, the Gulf of Mexico shrinks and is connected to the Atlantic by a narrow strait, the North Sea, Irish Sea, and English channel disappear and become dry land … you get huge changes in water circulation and weather patterns in the Northern system. Not much changes in the Southern polar system. It just gets colder but overall doesn’t change much.
Drop sea levels 100 meters and see how much the Northern Hemisphere changes, in particular the far Northern Hemisphere. Places that were coastal are now a hundred miles inland. The Baltic Sea is gone. Iceland is nearly twice as large. The Arctic Ocean is much smaller and 100-120 meters shallower.
In other words, changes are amplified at the polar areas of the Northern Hemisphere with changes in sea level and ice pack. The major changes in the Southern Hemisphere are in the tropics with Indonesia becoming huge (3x larger than India)? and connecting with the Philippines, Australia connects with New Guinea.
So you end up with a huge continental land mass at the North Pole that extends for a great distance.
So for a given amount of temperature change, the impact is different at the different poles. A 2C drop in temperature drop makes a much larger difference in the Arctic than the Antarctic.

Adolfo Giurfa (09:20:58) :
“Look at this:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/data/mag_maps/pdf/Z_map_mf_1990.pdf
Two north magnetic poles.”
Ed (21:53:16) :
“…One things you’d have to say though, the SH has much lower temperature variation than the NH and when compared have significant opposing trends (same as the solar proxies referred to above). I don’t know why the NH would be more sensitive to orbital forcing than the SH…perhaps the isolation of antarctica, or maybe some other orbital parameter we haven’t determined?…”
Makes me wonder if the changes to the magnetic North Pole have an effect on the Arctic Polar Vortex, in terms of position and strength?
Should this be the case it could effect the ability of the vortex to trap the cold air inside, letting it spill out and causing colder NH winters. The Antarctic Polar Vortex is much more stable in comparison and shows less variability in strength and position over time than the north.
Anyone know a good source of information about the Polar Vortices please, so I can have a closer look?
Also Is there any link between the Polar Vortices and the differences in the amount of ion influx from the Solar Wind?

vukcevic (05:54:41) :
Thanks for the link, IMO the useful contribution of the foregoing.

“Do you have/know of a tool whereby one could play with sea level and observe the land/sea coverage changes. Very interesting…”
Yes. There is a thing from NASA called World Wind there is a sea level plugin available for it.
The free version of the plugin (it acts as a “layer” on the map) only gives you a couple of “canned” choices. You can take sea level down to where it was during the last ice age or you can take it up to where Al Gore says it will get to. There is a version for sale that allows you to set the level where ever you want it.

Leif Svalgaard (09:19:56) :
vukcevic (08:01:51) :
It just shows even experts are fallible.
“As I said: “if things look wrong to you, it is because [99.99% of the time] you don’t understand what is going on”.”
That’s nuts.

Speaking of funks, just get a load of what the DMI arctic temperature has gone and done in the last couple of days.
Anybody got any ideas about what causes these sudden up and down 5 deg C steps.

Leif Svalgaard (11:15:42) :
Glenn (10:43:20) :
“As I said: “if things look wrong to you, it is because [99.99% of the time] you don’t understand what is going on”.”
That’s nuts.
“works for me.”
Sure doesn’t look that way. With any subject you participate.
“I would always assume that I’m at fault first. People with a different disposition apparently do otherwise.”
Sure doesn’t look that way. With any subject you participate.

LEIF
The current science asumes that most of the solar heating is due incoming SW radiation of which about 30% are reflected by the clouds and from the earth’s surface back to space , 20% is absorbed by the clouds and re-emitted back to space as LW. The other 50% reaches the earth’s surface and provides the regular warming and which eventually makes its way back to space via .
My question ,is it possible that during significant solar wind ram pressure spikes , that UVB rays are also sent to the earth and absorbed by the Oceans and which create extra heat .These high solar wind pressure spike periods of warming have a different pattern to the regular solar wind which has been diminishing since 1990.Is there no extra heating being generated by these high velocity solar wind pressure spikes .
These UVB RADIATION are in addition to the regular SW radiation currently being monitored .Over a period of say the last 100 years , could they account for the 0.75C degree rise .

Ed (12:01:34) : Kind of H.P. Lovecraft’s “The Other Gods”

Various sources cite 290-320 nm for UVB dwon to 280-315 nm.
A table of standard solar spectrum bvalues (for a TSI of 1353 at AM0) says only 2.2188% of the solar spectrum energy remains below 320, and only 0.8109 remains below 290. That gives 1.4079 % of UVB for the longer numbers.
For 315 we have 1.9243% remaining, and 0.5644 belkow 280 so the lower range carries 1.3599% of the solar energy at air mass zero.
The atmospheric absorption including ozone whacks into that quite severely so very little solar energy in the UVB range survives to reach the ocean surface. The water absorption coefficient exceeds 0.01-0.03cm^-1 for all of that range, so most of that energy is absorbed in perhaps three metres of ocean water (95% of it).

Leif Svalgaard (11:35:50) :
Glenn (11:28:44) :
“I would always assume that I’m at fault first. People with a different disposition apparently do otherwise.”
Sure doesn’t look that way. With any subject you participate.
“You just put yourself in that ‘otherwise’ category.”
As did you. And this could go on and on, except I’m not the one that said you always assume that you’re at fault first. You didn’t.

Stop. You know who you are.

Leif Svalgaard (14:28:57) :
radun (13:53:53) :
“Science progress does not come from endlessly ‘parroting’ what we know, but from challenging of that what we think we know.”
Leif Svalgaard (14:28:57
“No, progress comes from presenting new evidence and new ideas. Education comes from explaining what we think we know.”
If you work for a university, government or private research institution, with financial and other backing, than you are certainly expected to bring new evidence.
If you are an amateur, deprived of all the above, than only hope is to challenge areas where there are uncertainties.
Here, in particular I have in mind mr. vuckevic, whose contributions here and elsewhere, I have followed during several months. He has come up with number of interesting ideas, e.g. sunspot cycles and polar fields formulae, and now a new view of the Earth’s magnetism. He may be totally wrong, but that is not a point, he persists with ideas, despite with all the flak and occasional insult, which appears that he takes in his stride and good humor. Science needs amateurs who put their time and effort in exposing gaps, and on a rare occasions may or may not come up with goods. People like that should be applauded.

16 today? Does anyone have an image of 1030 on the 7th of November?
Continuum has not been updated and it is not visible on the GONG Images, flux has not budged, solar wind has dropped and yet today we see 16?
Why are they so adamant to skew the sunspot number so much? Why has 1030 recieved 16 today? This is getting ridiculous.

http://www.spaceweather.com/
cut the sunspot number to 11, I noticed just after midnight Sunday morning.

Leif,
NASA, Are Sunspots Disappearing? (3 September 2009):
The “firmament” of a sunspot is not matter but rather a strong magnetic field that appears dark because it blocks the upflow of heat from the sun’s
interior. If Earth lost its magnetic field, the solid planet would remain intact, but if a sunspot loses its magnetism, it ceases to exist.
“According to our measurements, sunspots seem to form only if the magnetic field is stronger than about 1500 gauss,” says Livingston. “If the current trend continues, we’ll hit that threshold in the near future, and solar
magnetic fields would become too weak to form sunspots.”
Your interpretation:
The spots will still be there except they will be invisible. The reason for this is that as the magnetic field decreases, the plasma heats up [rather it is the strong field that inhibits convection and cools the spot]. As the spot heats up, the temperature difference between the spot and the surrounding photosphere becomes smaller and the contrast decreases with the result that it becomes more difficult to see the spot. So, the spot is still there, the magnetic region is still there, …”
I find it rather difficult to describe precisely the L&P effect. The NASA interpretation seems to state that the sunspots cannot form if the magnetic field is lower than 1500 gauss.
Your interpretation is that the sunspots will still be there, but they will be less visible. And they will be very clear on the magnetograms.
The sunspot 1029 has surprised me. I thought that this was a very clear
sunspot with a dark umbra. Livingston has proved that this sunspot has much less contrast than other sunspots several years ago.
– Can we see with our eyes the decrease of contrast in the sunspot 1029 (in comparison with others)?
– What is the gain of saying: “the sunspot is still there but we cannot see it”? Why not say: “There are no sunspots anymore”?
– How can you say that we see on the sun the same activity if the magnetic field if the umbra has decreased from 3000 gauss to 1500 gauss? Is the only explanation that one visible sunspot with an umbra of 3000 gauss has now changed in one or two sunspots with the same area with an umbra of 1500 gauss (not visible to our eyes)?
– I think that even on the magnetograms, we should see a difference. Because the magetogram is sensitive to magnetism, it wil show a clear difference between an umbra of 3500 gauss and an other of 1500 gauss. Will it be possible to say e.g. : We see here [on the magnetogram] a large sunspot but due to the low magnetism of 1500 gauss, we cannot see it in the visible light?
Suggestion: If the L&P trend will become true, it should be very interesting you write a short article for journalists with a clear and instructive explanation of the L&P effect. Otherwise, very unscientific enunciations will be launched and nobody will understand what is happening exactly on the sun.

SIGNATURE OF ANTIMATTER DETECTED IN LIGHTNING
Fermi telescope finds evidence that positrons, not just electrons, are in storms on Earth
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/49288/title/Signature_of_antimatter_detected_in_lightning
An interesting development !