I decided to make an animated GIF of the latest cycle 24 sunspot, dubbed number 1002, which was literally a “flash in the pan”.
Credit: SOHO/MDI
One thing that has been common so far with all cycle 24 sunspots this year is that they have been small and very short lived. This one lived just slightly more than a whole day, a mere blip in solar time, where some sunspots will survive for a whole solar rotation (27 days) or more.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 7:19 AM, William Livingston wrote:
> Yes, very good data. Next week I’ll let you know.
> Bill
>
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:40:03 -0700
> “Leif Svalgaard” wrote:
>> Bill,
>> did you get a measurement of this [short-lived] little region?
>> Leif
Question: If the earth’s magnetic field has decreased since Wolf’s time, would that alter the observed magnetic deviation? The same variation in the solar induced field would be a larger percentage of the natural field and should produce a larger deviation.
Just an interesting footnote to Lief’s comments on scientific methodology: UV radiation was not discovered until 1801 and the ionosphere was not discovered until last century. So the early observers of this compass deviation could not explain the physical mechanism involved. But they observed the high degree of correlation between sunspots and magnetic changes.
The IPCC AR4 rejects solar correlations to climate change because the physical mechanisms (i.e., cause and effect) are not understood. This is a step backward in science. You don’t have to understand the complexities of air pressure and fluid density to use a barometer. Physical explanations will come in time. Most discoveries are made this way. I fear the trend toward dynamic modeling, which requires physical equations, may be inhibiting rather than helping science to advance.
Bill, you have clearly stated a very good point. It is how I learned the scientific method. Observe first without bias. Record data and find correlations. Develop a null hypothesis. Test null hypothesis. Tall and short peas became a predictable outcome over and over again under step four, thus began the search for the mechanism. We are still mapping genes. Had we waited to discover the mechanism before cross pollination became accepted practice, we would not be able to feed the world and mass starvation would be our constant companion year in and year out. We are still discovering the underlying mechanisms for things we know are correlated to genetic causes. Yet the theory is well accepted because of step two: observed correlations
AGW is based on a mechanism that shows no or poor correlations. If you want, you can certainly start there and try to prove your poorly correlated (and one time span does not make a good correlation just like one pea plant did not) mechanism, but your chances of being right wouldn’t make you the betting horse.
http://www.solarcycle24.com
” If sunspot activity for the month of September 2008 remains the way it is now until the end of the month, It will mark the first month where Cycle 24 activity outnumbers Cycle 23 activity … “
Retired Engineer (08:12:51) :
Question: If the earth’s magnetic field has decreased since Wolf’s time, would that alter the observed magnetic deviation? The same variation in the solar induced field would be a larger percentage of the natural field and should produce a larger deviation.
Yes and no. Here are the details: The direction [angle from true north] of the field is called the Declination D. The horizontal component, H, of the Earth’s field is what pulls the compass needle into position [the vertical component being balanced out by the mounting of the needle]. The electric current flows north-south in the morning [in the northern Hemisphere] and south-north in the afternoon. The current produces a magnetic effect dY in the East-West direction [Biot–Savart Law, perpendicular to the current]. The change in the direction of the needle is then determined by vector addition of H and dY: dD = dY/H [to good approximation, provided D is small]. So, indeed, decreasing H by 10% will increase dD by 10% if we keep dY the same. Since we know how H changes over time [it has been measured in the old days by counting the number of swings of a magnet in a minute, say, if you set it swinging. The stronger the magnetic field, the slower does the magnet swing]. So we can correct for that. Another correction is more subtle. Because dY, is not constant, even if the sun didn’t change. This is because the conductivity of the ionosphere increases as the Earth’s field decreases. The reason is this: the conductivity depends on the ‘mobility’ of the charges, the easier they can move, the higher the conductivity. But they have to traverse a magnetic field and tend to spiral around the field, and more for a stronger field. The more time spent spiraling rather than just moving from A to B, the less is their mobility, and hence the smaller is the conductivity, and conversely for a weaker field. One finds that the conductivity is nearly inversely proportional to the field, so again this effect can be calculated and corrected for. So, compensating for known changes in the measuring device [the magnetic effect of the current] enables us to keep track of the SSN.
Bill D. (08:44:18) :
Just an interesting footnote to Lief’s comments on scientific methodology: UV radiation was not discovered until 1801 and the ionosphere was not discovered until last century. So the early observers of this compass deviation could not explain the physical mechanism involved. But they observed the high degree of correlation between sunspots and magnetic changes.
Except that they did have a mechanism. The mechanism was this: The strength of a magnet depends on the temperature [warmer -> weaker], so since the temperature [of the Earth’s upper crust, not the atmosphere] changes during the day caused by the Sun [the ground warms up, then cools off] it is no wonder that there is a magnetic effect as well [“it’s the sun, stupid”, one more time]. This theory was first put forward by John Canton ~1760. As a true scientist, he made a prediction: if true the theory would predict that the daily variation would be larger in summer than in winter. He set out to prove that by measuring the amplitude of the variation every day for some years and found that his prediction is correct: the variation is larger during summer [we know that the UV is too, so no wonder]. This was a valid demonstration of the theory. You make a prediction, it comes true, so the theory is supported. In effect, the ‘science was settled’ for the next more than 100 years. That the theory was wrong, does not make any difference. Our theories today are also wrong [here and there] as we’ll find out in a 100 years, but you go with what you have.
The discovery of the solar flare by Carrington and its associated magnetic effect put a small dent in the theory, but one could always rescue it by positing that the flare warmed the Earth too, but the case was getting weaker. Same problem as today: the energy was not there as shown by Lord Kelvin in the late 19th century, relegating the correlations to a coincidence [part of the reason that Wolf’s successors were not too hot on Wolf’s method]. At about the same time [1880s] Balfour Stewart concluded that the magnetic effects were due to electric current high up in the atmosphere and the modern view began its slow climb to prominence. Wolf would never have used his method had he not had a theory explaining it, if it were just a coincidence. Causation is always necessary. We may not know the real cause, but what we posit must be a plausible cause. Without that, there is nothing to be had, and the whole thing is just numerology and cyclomania.
That was me that projected that spot. When a spot is that small, you have to move the paper around to see it if it is not distinct. It only took a few hours for that spot to get fuzzy. My seeing here is generally 3 out of 5, with periods of 4 on a routine basis. Not unlike Mt. Wilson, I too get a finger of oceanic air that represents the northernmost area of consistently good seeing subject to storms, of course. So, my question is that I don’t have a Fraunhofer to check out against, the optics may be much better now that would make a difference between picking that spot out in mediocre seeing after it’s intial clarity had fuzzed.
No, I am not at all convinced that my good fortune in knowing that the spot was there would be repeated 200 yrs ago between bouts of clouds or whatever. It could have easily been missed.
What would this event lead you to predict John? You must think this is important information. I like to look at data and make predictions if I can. That way I am constantly putting the feet of my beliefs and held theories to the fire for refinement or absolute destruction.
Regarding sunspot numbers, I think other indicators more readily lend themselves to more accurate predictions of Sun behavior. For me, I can’t make this 24 vs 23 SSN activity fit a prediction of the Sun’s behavior or its effects on our atmosphere. Other data makes me want to do that.
I have used the small production telescopes of 50 yrs ago, and let me tell you that the difference is quite pronounced for what you can get today. Eyepieces too.
Just a thought.
This summer in the UK has been very cloudy (probably seems worse than it was). If this summers sunspots would have been visible using the equipment of 200 years ago makes no difference, if you can’t see the sun you can’t count the spots.
Leif (07:26:34) Thank you very much, and thanks for the tip about the range of values the result may have. I’ll watch here for Bill’s report.
======================================
Robert Bateman (10:42:51) :
I have used the small production telescopes of 50 yrs ago, and let me tell you that the difference is quite pronounced for what you can get today. Eyepieces too.
As I have just explained at length, the difference in technology does not mean that the old sunspot numbers are undercounted.
Wolf took the difference in technology and seeing and eye-sight into account [although his method was forgotten or ignored during the 20th century].
“However, humans were not around when the last reversal took place, so what does this mean for life?”
Since there doesn’t appear to have been any negative affects to life in general in the last several reversals, I don’t see why there is any need to panic over this one.
Pamela Gray (10:42:15) :
“What would this event lead you to predict John?”
IF September finishes this way, with Cycle 24 “ahead of” Cycle 23 for the first time, AND this continues – more Cycle 24 activity than Cycle 23…
then sometime, say six months or so from now, we will be able to look back and see Solar Minimum, possibly even occurring right about now-ish, or a little earlier.
But as Leif has pointed out, old cycles can go on making spots long after the beginning of a new cycle, and Cycle 23 has shown it has endurance.
Based on the recent trend of Cycle 23 strength and Cycle 24 weakness, I do not believe we are seeing minimum yet, and this month will just be a little bump as the SSN curve scrapes along near zero.
Leif Svalgaard (11:00:16) :
does not mean that the old sunspot numbers are undercounted.
That said, the modern sunspot numbers are too high because of the change of method in 1893: Wolfer started to count the Tiny Tim’s that Wolf deliberately didn’t count. That is, in itself, not so bad, if we could only get the conversion factor between the two methods right, and therein lies the problem: it is not correct, with all the attendant problems and vitriol.
Lief, thanks for the clarification regarding the history of theories about the earth’s magnetic field. Examples can be multiplied how predictions are sometimes right, but for the wrong reasons (Ptolemy and even Newton come to mind). What it teaches us is that science is always a humble endeavor and we must remain open to the possibility of new paradigms. Become too invested in our pet theories can actually inhibit scientific progress. Statements like “this is settled science,” about complex theories (like AGW) should raise red flags.
Bill D. (11:44:28) :
What it teaches us is that science is always a humble endeavor and we must remain open to the possibility of new paradigms.
Scientists are VERY conservative in that respect. Because a paradigm is based on a lot of work by a lot of people, a new paradigm will always have a hard time, which is proper. The most efficient [and probably most prevalent] mechanism for removal of old paradigms is human mortality. As we tend to live longer nowadays, it may even become increasingly harder 🙂
I will Tivo the NatGeo “Earth’s Invisible Shield” documentary on Thursday so I can watch it again but, I also found a NOVA version you can watch on Google Video here
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3902466783636795302
I have not watched this so I don’t know if it’s the same show that has been rebranded from NOVA to NatGeo.
Leif Svalgaard (12:37:34) :
Bill D. (11:44:28) :
I just remembered another prediction made by the temperature->magnetism theory. Since it is warmer at the equator than at the poles, the theory would predict that the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field should be weakest at the Equator. In the early 19th century that prediction came true as measurements from different parts of the globe were obtained, so you can see that the ‘settled science’ was riding high. Today we know that the field doubles going from equator to pole which is a simple property of any dipole. Even Gilbert in his 1600 book ‘De Magnete’ could have told you so, and Gauss certainly knew in the 1830s. But the paradigm was strong and it took another generation or two to get rid off it.
Leif Svalgaard (12:56:07) :
temperature->magnetism theory.
Today we almost have the reverse of that old theory 🙂
Lief, as your illustrations from history point out, the current paradigm is always conserved because the burden of proof is on those who seek to overturn it–as it should be. I am not sure that this has been applied consistently to climate science. In order to establish their hypothesis, the proponents of AGW need to demonstrate that natural variability cannot account for warming over the last century or so. Given the fact that our understanding of these natural factors is still emerging, it follows that they can cannot be ruled out–at least not with the 90%+ level of certainty claimed by the IPCC. Again, scientists need to have more humility. Unfortunately I have see very little humility.
John-X (15:56:14) :
Well, I’d argue that both NASA and we are making too much out of a sunspeck.
However, I do have a few comments:
1) It was bigger than some of the of the others.
2) John-X and solarcycle24.com noted that this might be “the first month where Cycle 24 activity outnumbers Cycle 23 activity …” Just one SC23 sunspeck will “keep the faith” (or “maintain the funk”). No matter what, it takes a 12 month smoothed sunspot record to show the actual SC23 -> SC24 transition per the definition. If things really do start in earnest it will be obvious a month or so earlier, so let’s just all sit back and take it easy.
3) What? We have to wait until next week to hear if spot 1002 is on the 2015 fade line? I can’t wait that long!
BTW, I’m trying out a Firefox extension that makes it easier for me to edit text boxes with my preferred editor. I’ll probably screw up the next few posts until I get used to it.
Leif (12:37:34) The CO2=AGW paradigm won’t die from human mortality, it will die from freezing up and cracking into little shards. The politicization of science by this episode of the madness of crowds has made this paradigm brittle and fragile. Mortality was the easy way out, not so available today, and in this instance. It is hubritic, the things that made it too powerful, money, fame, and power, also contribute to the fall.
============================================
Bill D. (13:36:22) :
In order to establish their hypothesis, the proponents of AGW need to demonstrate that natural variability cannot account for warming over the last century or so.
You don’t have disprove the negative to establish a positive. Do I need to disprove that it is not aliens from outer space manipulating our climate for their purposes? In the debate about the age of the Earth [“young Earth” cranks] do I need to disprove that the World was not created last Tuesday with everything in place including us and our fake memories about a past? It is the other way around, the people claiming that natural variability accounts for the warming need to prove that positive. What would happen if it was half and half? Half AGW and half Sun or Aliens.
What is wrong with all this is the black-and-white opinions either way. And also the notion of ‘proof’ that does not apply here.
When a symposium of distinguished scientists agree on anything…flee to the bar in the hotel lobby before the BS gets too deep! Infiltrating Marxist pseudo-intellectual ‘theorists’ have even de-constructed climate science to advance their foggy agenda! Our blazing parent star has been a mysteriously self regulating entity for 4 billion years acting on its own accord. All we little ants on anthill earth can do is observe the phenomena and survive the consequences as best we know how. I’m getting my heavy duty L.L. Bean winter gear out of mothballs and ordering up a couple of cases of MRE’s!