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”.
William:
I’ve cited Hathaway’s, Janssens’, Weiss’, Svalgaard’s & Solanki’s comments in the prior thread. Weiss Solanki & Svalgaard are on the same page from the heliomagnetic view, Hathaway is predicting the same downtrend for 2020 in SC 25 using convective conveyor belt theory.
IOW this isn’t just one pair of astrophysicists making WAGs. Different researchers are reaching the same conclusions from different angles, observing big changes in the sun.
Looks like property prices in Florida may start to rise again. Better get some while it’s still “hot”!
>Evan, I’m holding you responsible for this. You better save me a page in your forthcoming bestseller of dark poetry.
It would have to be an anthology. (All of those are actual quotes. )
Thanks Alan for the link to the updated sunspot graphs.
Are there any updated graphs for the magnetic fields (figure 3 above)?
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.
I thought the idea for an ice age was that the NH precession would want to be opposite that of today–at winter during aphelion (i.e., winter in June) during max. ellipticity for an ice age because you’d want it coldest where there was maximum land mass.
But OTOH, reduced obliquity makes for less extreme seasons and that discourages summer melt, as you say. So I may well be wrong here.
Also, throw in some dispute over when and whether ellipticity or oblquity is the more primary driver, and whether inclination “counts”.
It is also speculated that even if obliquity, ellipticity, precession, and inclination were all lines up cold, there would still be no ice age without positive albedo feedback loops. But when the sun goes cold, that single factor is the main driver (with some help from albedo).
R dS: There would be very bad effects, but I don’t think as bad as you say. Millions, yes. Hundreds of millions? I seriously doubt it. If we were living under Middle Age conditions, sure. But technology/modernity would respond to mitigate much of the problem, and most of the world’s poor already live in the warmer climates..
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.
The deal is that he gets to speak however he wishes AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN. And, Lord knows, he does that. But “freedom of speech” (quite properly) is out the window when you are speaking for your boss. I consider it risible that Hansen has the face to go around caterwauling about the abrogation of his “freedoms”.
For that matter, he could quite reasonably be fired for ex cathedra remarks, as well. He has freedom of speech, NOT freedom to have a job at NASA.
Fred: What a field day for the heat.
> Sounds like “10 years of partly spotty”. – Anthony
Widely scattered faculae in the endlessly sunlit hours
(for the monurnal denizenry of Mercury)
Evan:
There are six plus billion people on our planet. Assuming a 10% fatality rate if we suffer another Maunder Minimum wouldn’t that equal 600 million? And I’m assuming the total fatalities which would include famine (the northern hemisphere will no longer be the breadbasket to the world), disease (collapse of modern medical technology because the northern hemisphere will be very inhospitable), conflicts resulting from scarcity of energy sources and from migration to warmer climates. I’m sure others can add more items to what I’ve included.
Evan: Good catch, for what it’s worth.
Well, if a Maunder Minimum is on the way what can we do? Hint: Some monks prayed that a glacier not destroy their town and what do you know? It worked for a while.
Bill–Yes, we are getting paid. Are you not getting your money? Hell, I’m getting 25K just for posting this comment.
You should file a complaint with your Union rep!
Did anyone read the Clilverd et al paper? (http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24Clilverd.pdf) It predicts (statistically – it wouldn’t be up to the standards of Leif Svalgaard, who thinks statistical methods aren’t worht the computers they are computed on) that the next downturn will not be a Maunder type minimum, but a short term phenomenom. They predict the real Maunder type to occur in 2100. Now, who knows? I do know that the physics based models have been predicting the next cycle for the last few years. Sometimes stat models are good stand ins if the physics aren’t all there yet.
I would actually like to see this happen. It would be a minimal event, and would get us prepared for the real maunder. We are fools to think that another ice age or little age is not coming, and we have to produce reliable energy before then. Energy is wealth, and hamstringing our economies at this point will leave us ill prepared for the future – whatever it is…
Data exists up to and including a couple of the first spots of cycle 24 – that is through March 2008 and they show [and thus confirm] the same trend, which is now based on 1990 and 2008. If I could figure out how to show an image here, I would.
Now, there are a few things to comment upon:
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, the interplanetary magnetic field is still there, the cosmic ray modulation is still there, TSI-variation is still there, the solar cycle dynamo is still operating, etc.
During the Maunder minimum, we know from 10Be in ice cores that the cosmic ray ray modulation was still operating, so it may be that we had a similar situation, that the magnetic field was still there, but the spots [especially the smaller ones] were hard to observe.
Even if the trend should ‘flatten’ a bit and 2015 becomes 2020 or more, it is quite possible that a Maunder-type minimum is in the offing. This does not , IMHO, automatically mean that we are entering another LIA, as it has not been demonstrated [at least to my satisfaction – the rest of you can believe what you wish, I’m not trying to convert anybody] that the LIA was due to the Sun.
I’m thinking that in future times, some of these “experts” who issued such dire warnings of warming climate and horrendous sunspot activity should be encouraged to advance in their careers to perhaps, say, night clerk at a convenience store.
UAH is -.17 for May
Leif,
If the sunspots during the Maunder Minimum were invisible because of a weaker magnetic field, isn’t this a milder version of them not being there at all?
So the question I have is was cosmic ray shielding less during the Maunder Minimum or not? And if it was not, why wouldn’t it be given sunspots with weaker than normal magnetic fields?
Hep me!
About the 2005 October “switch off”. This is quite common going into a solar minimum. Also happened in 1932, 1944, and 1975.
“conflicts resulting from scarcity of energy sources and from migration to warmer climates.”
Yeah, the anti-immigration crowd will unleash their vitriol on Canadians.
At least we won’t have to endure the masses eating ergot contaminated rye like Western civilization did in past cooling periods in recorded history. That accounted for a huge amount of population decline. Cooler/wetter climate resulted in more ergot contamination which suppressed immune systems and made people rather crazy. So if they didn’t go around suddenly burning witches, they would succumb to some plague or another because they were weakened by the ergoline alkaloids. We won’t have that problem in most areas these days.
[…] idade do gelo – como no Maunder Minimum, entre 1645 e 1715. Podem ler mais sobre isto, aqui e aqui. E nesta imagem podem comparar o tamanho duma mancha solar com o planeta […]
Assuming a 10% fatality rate if we suffer another Maunder Minimum wouldn’t that equal 600 million?
Yes. But I don’t assume a 10% fatality rate or anything remotely near that.
The countries most affected by the cold are developed. We will therefore avoid the plague and adapt our agriculture, if necessary.
The vulnerable nations can absorb a cooling more easily. (It will go hard for Inuit and Yakut, however.)
Million would die, but I doubt hundreds of millions would.
No New News here!! Every Amateur Radio Operator can tell you that a solar cycle is about 11 years long. We are at or near bottom of this cycle. That means that some where around 2018 we will bottom out again. That simply means fewer sun spots! Have these guy’s been sleeping and missed the past 2 or 3 solar cycles??
Steve: No, the ‘invisible’ spots still have their magnetic field [albeit a bit weaker]. This is different from there being no magnetic field. The cosmic ray shielding would be a little bit less, but not much. So the changes introduced by a Maunder minimum [if the Livingston-Penn mechanism holds up] will be only slight.
Lief
This is sensible. The Maunder was preceded by the milder Sporer which evidently bore a slight effect. The true depth of the LIA was the Maunder. If I follow your point the Be10 records show no spectacular dips in solar output & take your point that Shindell’s study over-modeled the drop in TSI. Even so, his -0.3 – -0.4 drop in GMT doesn’t sound all too unlikely, since we’ve already been purported to have seen a -0.1 degrC decrease in solar influence since 1995.
So, that leaves us with a mystery. Either there are other solar influences that count that haven’t been factored or the full-monty LIA might’ve been caused by a confluence of multiple events. Perhaps the antecedent Sporer would have had something to do with it, with a broad cooling of the seas and a series of la Ninas & negative AMO/NAO cycles.