From the “I hope to God they are flat wrong department”, here is the abstract of a short paper on recent solar trends by William Livingston and Matthew Penn of the National Solar Observatory in Tucson. It was sent to me by reader Mike Ward.
I previously highlighted a news story on this paper on May 21st, but didn’t have the actual paper until now. If anyone has an update to this paper, which uses data up to 2005, please use the comment form to advise.
Here is the complete paper, and below are some excerpts:
Abstract: We have observed spectroscopic changes in temperature sensitive molecular lines, in the magnetic splitting of an Fe I line, and in the continuum brightness of over 1000 sunspot umbrae from 1990-2005. All three measurements show consistent trends in which the darkest parts of the sunspot umbra have become warmer (45K per year) and their magnetic field strengths have decreased (77 Gauss per year), independently of the normal 11-year sunspot cycle. A linear extrapolation of these trends suggests that few sunspots will be visible after 2015.
Figure – 1. Sample sunspot spectra from the data set. The dashed line is from a sunspot observed in June 1991, and the solid line was observed in January 2002. These provide examples of the trends seen in the data, where the OH molecular lines decrease in strength over time, and the magnetic splitting of the Fe line decreases over time. A magnetic splitting pattern for the January 2002 Fe line of 2466 Gauss is shown, while the June 1991 spectrum shows splitting from a 3183 Gauss field
Figure 2. – The line depth of OH 1565.3 nm for individual spots. The upper trace is the smoothed sunspot number showing the past and current sunspot cycles; the OH line depth change seems to smoothly decrease independently of the sunspot cycle.
Figure 3. – A linear fit to observed magnetic fields extrapolated to the minimum value observed for umbral magnetic fields; below a field strength of 1500G as measured with the Fe I 1564.8nm line no photospheric darkening is observed.
Figure 4 – A linear fit to the observed umbral contrast values, extrapolated to show that by 2014 the average umbrae would have the same brightness as the quiet Sun.
They write: Sunspot umbral magnetic fields also show systematic temporal changes during the observing period as demonstrated by the sample spectra in Figure 1. The infrared Fe 1564.8 nm is a favorable field diagnostic since the line strength changes less than a factor of two between the photosphere and spot umbra and the magnetic Zeeman splitting is fully resolved for all sunspot umbrae. In a histogram plot of the distribution of the umbral magnetic fields that we observe, 1500 Gauss is the smallest value measured. Below this value photospheric magnetic fields do not produce perceptible darkening. Figure 3 presents the magnetic fields smoothed by a 12 point running mean from 1998 to 2005. The ordinate is chosen so that 1500 G is the minimum. A linear fit to the changing magnetic field produces a slope of 77 Gauss per year, and intercepts the abscissa at 2015. If the present trend continues, this date is when sunspots will disappear from the solar surface.
Let us all hope that they are wrong, for a solar epoch period like the Maunder Minimum inducing a Little Ice Age will be a worldwide catastrophe economically, socially, environmentally, and morally.
I’m still very much concerned about the apparent step change in 2005 to a lower plateau of the Geomagnetic Average Planetary (Ap) index, that I’ve plotted below. This is something that does not appear in the previous cycle:
click for a larger image
What is most interesting about the Geomagnetic Average Planetary Index graph above is what happened around October 2005. Notice the sharp drop in the magnetic index and the continuance at low levels, almost as if something “switched off”.
Cycle 24 starts,
The spots are just tiny specks.
Then invisible.
Jack,
What? You get paid? and here I’ve been a denialist for free. How do I get paid?
There once was a spot from Hi-Lat
that looked like a bug had gone splat.
But then the penumbra
did merge with the umbra
and that made the Sun’s face go flat.
Oh dear, this is one of the first limericks I’ve managed to write.
After moving to Eastern Massachusetts in 1974 I thought of writing a limerick that rhymed Boston with Lost in, but it took years before I could rhyme those. (Austin)
There once was a lady from Austin
who moved to the fair town of Boston.
Her maps she did spurn
she took a wrong turn
and joined all the folks who were lost in.
Evan, I’m holding you responsible for this. You better save me a page in your forthcoming bestseller of dark poetry.
One minor nit to pick. The modelers do have actual data behind their projections. The 0.6C temp increase over the last century.
The big difference is that, as Anthony has demonstrated, the temperature record is so badly polluted with micro-site, UHI, land use change, equipment change and lack of maintenance, etc. issues, as to be close to useless. In my opinion.
The data on sunspots and solar magnetism do not suffer from such problems.
Bob,
#2 is an excellent one.
Thanks.
The paper presents a delicious opportunity to quantify this downturn data, not just graph trend lines. Let’s not forget the mathematical formulas for many types of energy producing phenomena (thank you Einstein). The sun has many features that are known and can be quantified. It is just a matter of time before these observations yield to a chalk board filled with calculations of magnetic rope twisting, the inertia produced by such twisting, and thus the calculated rotation speed of the various sections of the sun into union and disunion. All these calculations will lead to magnetic/energy changes that can be predicted decades in advance. Once the relationship between magnetic changes and earth’s atmosphere is understood (cosmic ray cloud seeding?), the world will move on to the next great mystery.
While the Sun is a variable star, it is important to remember it is also a remarkably stable star.
Temperatures declined somewhat during the Little Ice Age and the Dalton Minimum but it appears to be limited to 1 degree (1.5 degrees at the extreme) in decline.
Changes in Earth’s orbit appear to have much more influence on the climate (in the recent history versus long-term geologic history) where we have changes in temperature of as much as 6.0C throughout the ice ages.
The most likely culprit (not the Sun) would be less tilt of the Earth (less warming in high latitudes in the summer months leading to snowpack not completely melting leading to glacier build-up, leading to lower insolation, leading to an ice age. etc. ) A more eliptical orbit also results in the Earth being farther from the Sun in the northern hemisphere’s summer, leading to less melting of the snowpack in the summer etc. etc. leading to a greater ice age in the northern hemisphere than the south.
Milankovitch versus solar cycles to explain the ice ages.
How odd! I have heard so many AGW stories it never crossed my mind that Hansen et al were being denied access to the media by NASA
as reported in the LA times today.
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/wire/sns-ap-nasa-censor,1,1985984.story
That’s really interesting. I agree with Jeff Alberts that our existence is dwarfed by what happens around us in the universe, but I see this as a positive circumstance. Speaking of morals, for us to gain a degree of humility, for us to believe in something much bigger than ourselves to which we’re subject, whether that’s through religion or science, is a healthy thing. And check out my CARTOONS by clicking on my name link.
I fail to see how a linear extrapolation is at all justified. Pick any previous downward trend, extrapolate it until it reaches zero, did that zero occur? Pick any previous upward trend, extrapolate until the whole sun is one sunspot, did that occur?
Couple Questions: Was this published? And (in the same way I am with the warm-alarmists) shouldn’t we be cautious about linear extrapolation? The warm-alarmists do this with the Arctic sea-ice melt all the time and it isn’t quite correct.
Cold-Alarmists can’t co-opt the methods of the warm-alarmists. Worst-case scenarios almost never happen in reality.
[…] according to a paper from National Solar Observatory reseachers William Livingston and Matthew Penn, there is a very good possibility, based on studies, that the Sun – our life force – will no longer […]
Bob is 100% spot-on with his IPSC analogy. Hail, head, BANG!
That October, 2007 “step” is reminiscent of the result of changing instruments/locations/conditions at weather stations. Could an instrumentation or data processing change be involved?
The “morally” topic should be taken very seriously. During the Maunder Minimum, “witch trials” were implemented to find and punish those responsible for bad weather and crop failures. Ever hear of the crime of “weather cooking?” It was some people’s bad luck to boil their clothes (an old method of doing the wash) just before some bad weather and get accused of causing it. I think this is where the image of the “witches cauldron” comes from. Now think about the warmists who are already calling for criminal trials for “carbon polluters” in our current comfortable time. What might they foment in truly hard times?
I believe the name of the next solar minimum is already spoken for as the Landscheidt Minimum. Some researchers have been forecasting its likely onset for some years now. I hope they’re wrong.
What’s to worry about? The sun is just a very large light bulb, but not the energy saving type.
Bob: you’re right, the authors do put in some “if’s”. My point is that it’s a giant if. It should be in 48pt bold. I guess I wasn’t too clear that I think the IPCC predictions are also little more than linear extrapolations (dressed up with supercomputer climate modelling), and they don’t seem to be panning out. Why should we expect the sunspot/magnetism extrapolations to do any better?
Still, interesting stuff.
the real fact of the matter is that if the charts proved correct, no sun spots at all in 2015, worldwide temperatures drop by, let’s say 5 degrees over 1999, too many people have too much invested in global warming to admit that it’s a fraud. We could be seeing consistent freezes in Orange county CA, with actual snow caps in the Hollywood Hills, and people will still be running around, calling it an aberration, insisting that the world is actually getting warmer, in spite of the evidence we saw before our eyes.
I hope they’re wrong too. If the sunspots do disappear and we enter another Maunder Minimum the catastrophic results will see the planet’s population plummet as hundreds of millions will die from the next mini ice age – starvation due to food production plummeting; deaths due to the cold climate – the old will be the first to be affected, then the sick and infirmed. Yeah, I hope Livingston and Penn are wrong.
1990 – 2005 6 years of data
2006 – (Jan.) 2015 9 years extrapolation
Where are the updates? 2006, 2007, 2008 (1/2) data?
1990 – (Jun.) 2008 8.5 years of data
(July) 2008 – (Jan.) 2015 6.5 years of extrapolation
Up to date graph of the sunspots here. From NOAA/SWSP, up to May 31.
I’m not sure what all the excitement is about. An extrapolation to zero is never mentioned in any of the graphs. It only mentions either “minimum observed” or “contrast to a quiet sun.” Paraphrasing Steve Martin, panic is not pretty. The paper is a study on formulae applied to collected data, with a deduction to fixed measurable points. How I read it: if x happens then this feasible y will happen. I’m not a solar scientist, but I can read. Maybe a better title would have been ‘Sun may become magnetically dormant by 2015.”
Please don’t throw a bunch of scientific lingo at me. I wouldn’t understand it anyway. I just want to see Al Gore, shivering and penniless on a corner, “Will eat crow for heat.”
Mike Ward
Dallas, TX
Just testing!
Which is worse – letting the pied piper lead us into a somewhat poorer carbon salvation in a relatively warm world, or living through a cooling cycle amidst a global die-off of Maunder minimum scope?
Maybe we’ll see both. It certainly looks like that right now. The silence from the AGW crowd regarding the obvious lack of solar activity and ocean/atmosphere cooling does not bode well.
Barring any major re-adjustments of the temperatures (not a certainty by any means), I am pretty sure that it will take at least another year of cooling to convince a significant portion of scientists and the press that something major is happening. Whether politicians will then follow is another thing, as they tend to take a long time to get anything done (look at the push back on biofuels).
Tom in Texas.
Math please: Figure 2 in the report covers 1990-2005, 15-16 years of data. That trend is pretty powerful as it does go through one and a half cycles.
The two other figures, 3 and 4, do look a little odd with the data going in the opposite direction before ~2000, compared to the trendline after. I do agree, what was the data from 1990 to 2005 for “magnetic fields” and “observed umbral contrast values”? Why cut it off at 1998?
It is always more powerful if a claim (figure 1) can be backed up with additional observations (figure 3 and 4), if they would cover the same time period, or depending on what is being measured, use the same base reference.
One always have to be on ones toes with these reports.
While I agree that extrapolation is risky, for corroboration there is the fact that the “solar conveyor belt”, which predicts activity one cycle out, has slowed to the point that NASA has reported it “off the charts”.
There’s something happening here, what it is ain’t exactly clear.