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”.
Leif, thankyou for your detailed reply. “humorous assaults” aside, please stop avoiding the core issue Landscheits theory turns on:
In his peer reviewed and accepted paper of 1976 he observed changes in the spin rate of the suns equatorial region. He posits the theory that this results from a spin-orbit coupling caused by a drag effect of the suns ejected plasma on the corona, as posited by Dicke 1965.
1) There is falsifiable content in this theory.
2) It rests primarily not on the direct gravitational effect of jupiter (which is nonetheless real enough to shift the sun by twice it’s own diameter), but the suns own motion through it’s ejected plasma as it orbits (bad word as it’s motion is not anything like circular or regular) the centre of mass of the solar system. Landscheidt mathematically quantifies the effect, but accepts further work needs to be done to tie the proposed mechanism to solar output variance. Nonetheless, he is able to provide predictions against which his theory can be tested.
3) Until his theory is scientifically disproven, it should not be casually dismissed. I appreciate that the study of cyclicity in celestial mechanics is not your field of specialism, so I would not chide you for not undertaking this task yourself. Since this is not your field, and since you don’t have an interest in it’s study, perhaps you should recall the Wittgenstein you quoted recently. Chided by Edmund Halley for his quasi religious “barycentric nonsense” Isaac Newton responded by saying:
“Sir, I have studied it, you have not.”
Regarding the prediction Landscheidt made 19 years ago, in addition to the points you addressed he also said:
” If a further connection with long-range variations in
sunspot intensity proves reliable, four to five weak sunspot cycles
(R < 80) are to be expected after cycle 23 with medium strength (R ~ 100).”
His prediction for the Rmax of cycle 23 turned out pretty well, and the jury is still out on cycle 24 and beyond. Time will tell. That you dismiss his prediction for solar maximum in 2011.8 as a facile addition of the average length of the sunspot cycle to his prediction for solar maximum in 2000.6 is the clearest indication that you have neither studied or understood his work.
As the suns motion about the barycentre shifts from it’s harmonious phase to it’s chaotic phase, we can expect the length of the solar cycle to change from it’s 10.1 year average on the one side of it’s bipolar tendency to anything between 9.5-13.5 years during the chaotic barycentric motion phase. Given the long cycle 23, I would predict 24 will be mercifully short if relatively inactive. Since the ascending and descending phases of the solar cycle approximate the golden section, I would expect solar maximum to occur a little later than Landscheit predicted, but not by so much in consideration of the fact that the prediction was made *19 years ago* that we should use any minor discrepoancy as grounds for dismissing the general utility and value of his theory. Certainly when proponents of alternative theories change without datestamp their “prediction” of what is already happening.
To cut to the chase, until the content of Landscheidt’s theory is falsified, and his prediction based on it proven wildly innacurate, it is unscientific to dismiss him and his work.
Quoting wikipedia as support for doing so gave me a good laugh – thanks for that. Newton studied alchemy and astrology too. Is he on wikipedias hitlist? Does this detract from his contribution to science? Perhaps it augmented a wider understanding of the universe than that displayed by modern specialism allows.
And if you still think we’re going round in circles, get used to it, because that’s just how the universe is: Cyclic, and spiral, with a bit of phase reversal and retrograde motion thrown in to keep the soup thoroughly stirred.
“Galileo actually saw many spots. The MM started ~years later.”
this should have been: ~ 30 years later
Leif: Interesting, so, because he studied astrology, which we all know, and because YOU have decided that his sun cycle theories fit YOUR definition of astrology, then you brand his sun cycle work as astrology. That is classic. Wow. Say, Leif, here’s a thought, how about you actually READ his work yourself? I doubt that you will, but here is a paper of his anyway:
New Little Ice Age
Instead of Global Warming?
I stand by my opinion of you, until you prove otherwise.
Thanks a BUNCH Leif! Spent an hour at the site.
LS:
Carl Smith re: Landscheidt 7/1/2007
“and I venture a speculation that if no cycle 24 spots appear in the very near future then perhaps Dr Landscheidt should have also mentioned the other possible date of the upcoming solar max using his methods, 2013.6 (see details of his methods in the paper), which if it turns out to be true means a very long cycle which could indicate a very low sunspot max.”
I believe Carl’s analysis should be preferred to yours, prima facie.
Defining science as you do renders your work on TSI a ‘conjecture’, the relations between IDV, SC, IMF, etc., are not explicit in any formal sense. A filtered curve cannot be construed as f(x) and no g(f(x)) is conceivable; no mapping from one domain to the next is on offer. Your ambitious conclusions are not supported absent this motivation.
Leif, at 22:22:48 So is it all coincidence? The correlations are not present because of causation? Is that likely?
=====================
“Both stars will continue to circle forever”
Yes, you are indeed confused.
Several other studies [1-6] have shown that solar activity and Earth’s climate are largely controlled by the accelerationand deceleration of the Sun in its orbit about the center of mass of the solar system.
Kirt Griffin recently sent this link where YOU CAN SEE the ever-changing effect of planets on the Sun and their relative positions at any point in time:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar
Earth’s climate will continue to change as long as planets continue to move
around the Sun.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
REFERENCES:
1. P. D. Jose, “Sun’s motion and sunspots”, Astron. J. 70,
193-200 (1965).
2. R. W. Fairbridge and J. H. Shirley, “Prolonged minima and the 179-yr
cycle of the solar inertial motion,” Solar Physics 110, 191-220 (1987).
3. Theodor Landscheidt, “Extrema in sunspot cycle linked to Sun’s
motion, “Solar Physics 189, 413-424 (1999).
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/extrema.htm
Other papers over the past quarter century by Theodor Landscheidt on
solar-induced climate changes are here:
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/publications.htm
4. J. Shirley, “Axial rotation, orbital revolution and solar spin-orbit
coupling”, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 368, 280-282
(2006).
5. W. J. R. Alexander, F. Bailey, D. B. Bredenkamp, A. vander Merwe and N.
Willemse, “Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and
water resource development,” J. South African Institut. Civil Eng. 49,
32-44 (2007).
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2007/Alexander-etal-2007.pdf
6. O. Manuel and H. Ratcliffe, “Fingerprints of a local supernova,”
to be published in SUPERNOVA RESEARCH, Nova Science Publishers, Inc.,
Hauppauge, NY, in press, 2008.
http://www.omatumr.comabstracts2007/20071202_Manuel_and_Ratcliffe.pdf
I’m overwhelmed by the scholarly research and deep insight being displayed. One prediction of mine has certainly come true: that eventually all public discussions of what causes solar activity ends like this one. Even on Anthony’s blog. I’ll end with a quotation by [what makes some people laugh] the dreaded Wikipedia of Carl Sagan’s book: “We’ve arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces… I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudoscience and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive.[…] The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir.”
Oliver: When I see papers cited I always check if they pass my ‘crank filter’ and my ’sloppiness filter’ and my ’solid analysis filter’. These checks are usually quick [seconds]. Let me take the case of the South-African paper by Alexander.
Here is their Figure 10: http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA10.png
The authors are ‘barycenter people’ and calculate TSI received from the Sun which is supposedly wobbling around the center of mass [SSCM – the cross] of the Solar System. They calculate four values [perihelium, aphelium, two equinoxes – interesting enough these Southern Hemisphere people call the March equinox the ‘Spring’ equinox]. Here I show the actual observed TSI. I have plotted their values as the red dots: http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA11.png
Since they don’t match up and don’t make sense, I can now dismiss the paper, which I hereby do. It does not pass muster. The same argument applies to all the barycenter papers.
The above is a quote from a similar discussion at CA. Needless to say, it didn’t rock anybody’s faith in their erroneous belief.
Leif,
I note however that you are unable or unwilling to address the core of Landscheidt’s theory (see my previous post), which has falsifiable content. and remains unaffected whether the barycentric motion of the sun about the centre of mass of the solar system is caused by planetary motion or the hand of God.
I think your preference for accusing others of demonic possession over addressing their science puts you in the vatican of scientific orthodoxy.
“In 1633 Galileo was tried for heresy.
He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest.
After a period with the friendly Ascanio Piccolomini (the Archbishop of Siena), Galileo was allowed to return to his villa at Arcetri near Florence, where he spent the remainder of his life under house arrest, and where he later became blind. ”
-wookipedia-
REPLY: Leif, I see what you mean now. Tallbloke. I suspect Leif looks at Landscheidt like I look at at 911 truthers. He’s probably just burned out on the falsification argument as I’ve seen happen in talking about 911 “derived facts” to truthers, once falsified and “killed”, the zombie returns again and again. I’m not saying Landscheidt is anything at all like a 911 Truther, so please don’t make the inference, only that it is one of those issues that becomes a circular argument due to it’s nature.
I’ll point out I’m neutral on Landscheidt, but I don’t want the argument to take over the thread.
So for that reason, everyone, let’s leave Landscheidt off the table for now. Feel free to discuss anything else about solar science. – Anthony
Lights down.
Curtain.
““We’ve arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. ” Carl Sagan via Lief
For heavens sake, quit arranging things! Life is far too complicated for even the best brains to try to arrange. Some better brains than Carl Sagan decided liberty was the best solution.
“And yet, it moves.”
{Exit stage left in search of science, pursued by a motley crew of zombies, ghosts and demons.}
[…] “Sunspots May Vanish by 2015″ […]
Maybe the Sun is just dying.
[…] Watts blogs about Livingston and Penn’s paper, Sunspots may vanish by 2015, and the ASA’s paper Does a Spin-Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern […]
Anthony, I would like to see an updated graph of the Observed Geomagnetic Averaged Planetary Index. I think the last one you published was in mid-June. Now that July is almost over, and the sun has been really quiet this past month, it would be interesting to see if there are any signs of change in this index. Thanks.
[…] Though, Livingston and Penn seem to think we are entering into a grand minima via their recent paper. […]
ERROR BARS: I keep meaning to post about error bars. I am concerned when I see charts like the one Figure 2 as it tells you nothing about the errors present in the measurements (maybe else where in their document but not in the post)
I could envisage a situation where the early measuring equipment was of poor quality and had large errors compared to the more recent data. If that were the case there might be no quotable trend at all.
Since this blog generally complains about the quality and repeatability of data, I think everyone should keep in mind that knowledge of errors of observation is critical when interpreting any data.
I think it is excellent that this blogs opens up the discussion about the Sun and the effect of changing behavior of the Sun on the climate and it does it in its usual high quality manner. However, this is primarily a climate blog. Historical evidence indicates that the activity of the Sun as observed through sunspots affects the climate. We have a rare historical opportunity to observe this effect in real time – as long as the Sun continues to behave like it has for the recent past – and see if the low sunspot activity translates into an observable climatic effect. The AGW proponents by predicting rising temperatures as a consequence of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration created an ideal condition for the effect to be observed and be highly publicised if it indeed happens. However, trying to predict climatic changes is hard enough. Coupling it to trying to predict the behaviour of the Sun which is even less well understood than the climate, makes prediction more of a guess than science.
If the Sun continues its low sunspot activity and we have solid evidence that it influences the climate, that would be a major accomplishment. It would give a major impetus to understanding of the sunspot -climate link. It would also lead to trying to get a better understanding of the behavior of the Sun, which I do not believe that we currently have.
[…] global warming advocates NASA assure us that significant sunspot activity will return in 2012, but a recent a paper on recent solar trends by William Livingston and Matthew Penn of the National Solar Observatory in Tucson, predicts that […]
[…] nie wszyscy wiedzą, że obecny cykl słoneczny jest anomalny? Brak plam słonecznych. William Livingston i Matthew Penn z National Solar Observatory in Tucson ostrzegają, że plamy słoneczne m…. Co to może oznaczać? Może to oznaczać, że weszliśmy już w mały wiek lodowcowy. Podobnie […]
[…] Livingston and Penn – Sunspots may vanish by 2015 […]