While the sun still struggles to form cycle 24 spots like seen in this weak plage area (upper right) in today’s SOHO MDI and Magnetograms (shown below) Paul Stanko of NOAA writes to tell me of an interesting development in his tracking of the International Sunspot Number (ISN).
Paul writes:
My running mean of the International Sunspot Number for 2009 just dipped below 1.00. For anything comparable you now need to go back before 1913 (which scored a 1.43) which could mean we’re now competing directly with the Dalton Minimum.
Just in case you’d like another tidbit, here is something that puts our 20 to 30 day spotless runs in perspective… the mother of all spotless runs (in the heart of the Maunder Minimum, of course!) was from October 15, 1661 to August 2, 1671. It totaled 3579 consecutive spotless days, all of which had obs.
Errant counting of sunspecks from Catainia aside, it appears that we haven’t seen anything like this in modern history.
We live in interesting times.
Wholly hypothetical but let’s say for instance that all year long everyday, someone walks outside and peers through his solar telecope at precisely 9AM and counts no spots everyday. But everyday from 10:30AM to 6AM the next morning a cluster of sunspots apears. The observer would say that there had been no spots all year long, but in reality there was lots of life up there.
Again the biggest difference between today’s measurements and those of yester year could well be one of sampling.
I ask only in the sense of how much lower does the temperature typicaly get during an 11 year cycle when spots are on the low? While it is easy to say, “Its the sun, Stupid” I do not accept easy answers.
Apologies beforehand to Leif . . .
My understanding is that there is only a 0.1C difference between a normal cycle minimum and maximum. But IF a spotless period persists well beyond its normal timespan (esp. if an entire positive phase is “missed”), the difference can multiply at least tenfold.
No, we do not “know” this, it is merely correlation, which does not prove causation. And there is the Oort Minimum to consider. But . . .
One of the problems of recognizing the Maunder Minimum had a very long period of no spots is that this doesn’t fit in with a Babcock-Leighton type theory. This theory suggests the Suns modulation is a product of chance on every cycle and therefore looks weak in the face of a Maunder type minimum. Its like throwing lots of snake eyes in a row.
While it is true that our records of early observations is scant, we also don’t know if they didn’t observe, couldn’t observe or the record was simply lost.
Couldn’t osbserve would be more information than didn’t observe.
Lost records have been found recently by intensive search, and much was found. We will probably find more if we keep digging.
Again the biggest difference between today’s measurements and those of yester year could well be one of sampling.
And also a different animal sampling.
They recorded groups, not considering spots to be significant.
We do know from Observatorie de la Paris that spots have increased per # of groups in the last century (20’s??).
We don’t know if there was a point in the early observations where spots vs groups rose or fell, because nobody kept track.
Adam from Kansas: You asked, “what spot in the Atlantic is the actual AMO spot, because the North Atlantic seems to have a positive anomaly in a large area, is it not in that part?”
The AMO is not a direct measurement of SST at one point in the North Atlantic. It is calculated by subtracting Global SST anomalies from North Atlantic SST anomalies. For the North Atlantic SST anomalies, I used the coordinates 0 to 70N, 78W to 10E.
So if the AMO is dropping, it could mean that North Atlantic SST anomalies are decreasing faster than Global SST anomalies, or it could mean that global SST anomalies are rising faster than North Atlantic SST anomalies. So which is it?
Take a look at the monthly SST anomaly data.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/04/march-2009-sst-anomaly-update.html
If you scroll down to the graph of Global SST anomalies, you can see it’s been relatively flat for the last few months. But if you scroll down a few graphs more, you’ll note that North Atlantic SST anomalies have been dropping rapidly. So it’s a drop in North Atlantic SST anomalies that’s causing the decrease in the AMO.
Also note that the North Atlantic SST anomalies are still above zero. The reason the AMO is negative is because the North Atlantic SST anomalies are less than Global SST anomalies.
Regards
Mike Bryant (17:11:59) :
There is also a Global Warming Primer online that might help you. It is here:
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm/i>
Mike, many thanks for your link to an excellent learning tool.
(I tried to figure out the html codes from the page source and hope this post isn’t really messed up.)
I apologize if this has been covered, but I thought that to be counted, the spot had to be within some limits of observed solar longitude, which would eliminate this one which is about to disappear around the limb. Or did I misunderstand that somewhere?
Geoff Sharp (19:23:55) :
This theory suggests the Suns modulation is a product of chance on every cycle and therefore looks weak in the face of a Maunder type minimum. Its like throwing lots of snake eyes in a row.
First of all the solar dynamo worked working fine during the Maunder minimum [we know this from cosmic ray proxies], the problem is to explain why in spite of that the sunspots were hard to see. Perhaps Livingston and Penn have the answer to this.
Second, the polar fields are the product of two things: existing flux from the past cycle and random walk towards to pole. With a lot of flux you usually get a lot of polar flux too despite the randomness on top of that and with only a little flux you usually get weak polar fields, so [as observed] we usually have a succession of strong cycles and a succession of weak cycles. But because of the chance that more [or less] flux makes it to the poles, those successions are broken from times to time [as observed]. So there is nothing mysterious or difficult about this.
George M (20:16:20) :
to be counted, the spot had to be within some limits of observed solar longitude
If it is at all visible it should be counted by the official rules. In my own personal count, I don’t count if the distance from central meridian is greater than 70 degrees, but that is not the official criterion.
Leif Svalgaard (21:27:14) :
So there is nothing mysterious or difficult about this.
Except the majority of science dont have a clue whats going to happen to the next few solar cycles. This can be seen by the multitude of varying predictions that vary greatly.
You are talking about observations, not about what is driving the Sun. A random Sun theory defies the regular solar pattern that has been observed over 11000 years, and also poorly explains grand minima cycles themselves. During the Maunder there was 70 years of poor cycles which could not happen if left to chance alone, take a regular step back and we see the exact pattern again during the Sporer which lasted at least 90 years, take another regular step back and we have the Wolf etc, this pattern goes back 1000’s of years…..this is not something random.
Geoff Sharp (23:13:07) :
defies the regular solar pattern that has been observed over 11000 years,
There is no such regular pattern, as simple as that. If there were, we would all be using that. You have not demonstrated any such pattern.
Leif Svalgaard (01:45:21) :
Geoff Sharp (23:13:07) :
defies the regular solar pattern that has been observed over 11000 years,
There is no such regular pattern, as simple as that. If there were, we would all be using that. You have not demonstrated any such pattern.
The pattern is very clear.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/c14nujs1.jpg
Geoff Sharp (01:56:56) :
Leif Svalgaard (01:45:21) :
“There is no such regular pattern,”
The pattern is very clear.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/c14nujs1.jpg
I don’t see any. Careful statistical analysis (both by myself and by Usoskin et al. and others) doesn’t show any.
Leif Svalgaard (02:02:14) :
don’t see any. Careful statistical analysis (both by myself and by Usoskin et al. and others) doesn’t show any.
Lets see this combined analysis.
An obscure photograph produced by NASA, during a more active Sun, may be a first step to understanding what is actually modulating sunspot cycle.
(i) A unique polar coronal jet observation was made on June 7, 2007. Analysis of the images from the two distinct viewpoints of the STEREO spacecraft reveals an unmistakable helical structure in the jet. These pioneering, multi-viewpoint observations from STEREO provide the first conclusive evidence for the jet’s helical geometry.(/i)
http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/item.php?gid=1&id=66
The spiral magnetic fields form in a plasma only in presence of an electric current.
An explanation of helical magnetic fields and currents in plasma may be found here:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-345/ch15.htm#250
That Sunspeck didn’t last 24 hours.
vukcevic 04:12:38
Yeah, and weaker magnetic fields like in our present spots mean less ejection of coronal material, and less solar wind, and more penetration of cosmic rays here, and more clouds, and a cooling earth. Or am I way out in left field? Leif?
===============================================
Leif 21:27:14
You’re hanging your belief that the solar dynamo worked ‘normally’ during the Maunder Minimum on cosmic ray proxy data. Perhaps that is wrong for some unguessed reason. I know you mentioned several others bits of evidence, but I suspect you are not certain that the solar dynamo works ‘normally’ during Grand Minima.
====================
Longitudes aside, I still couln’t project it yesterday.
Did anyone else in this forum try, sucessful or not?
kim (06:27:07) :
Leif 21:27:14
You’re hanging your belief that the solar dynamo worked ‘normally’ during the Maunder Minimum on cosmic ray proxy data. Perhaps that is wrong for some unguessed reason. I know you mentioned several others bits of evidence, but I suspect you are not certain that the solar dynamo works ‘normally’ during Grand Minima.
Great question….I wouldnt expect a good answer on this one.
Kim
You could be right on both. Low activity, low heliospheric current, low polar fields and even lower next 3 cycles.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarFields-vf.gif
On Maunder minimum; polar fields were reversing, but they were very weak, so not much sunspot-related was going on to record.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/1600-1700.gif
‘Solar dynamo’ is a term solar scientist use in trying to explain something they entirely do not understand. Some go for deep dynamo (Hathaway, Dikpaty) some for shallow (Svalgaard, Schatten), but I would not be surprised that there isn’t one there at all of a kind they try to imagine. Think about it this way : The Earth’s volume is million times less than Sun’s, last reversal was 750,000 years ago, and then we expect million times larger sun to do it every 11 years. True solar dynamo is probably very stable (deep in the interior), the magnetic reversals are most likely just ‘surface’ effects, resulting from modulation of the solar currents’ flows (shock horror?!)…
Lief, it is very likely that they did “miss” on aspects of their research, on this we can agree. Taken one step into the present, and it is very likely that we today are not getting all the data as well. It would be ultimate arrogance to assume otherwise. Simple as that.
Geoff Sharp (02:42:52) :
Let’s see this combined analysis.
We have been over this before, but there are two examples.
None of the sharp and present peaks in the power spectrum of the angular momentum:
http://www.leif.org/research/Angular%20Momentum.png
are present above the noise in the 14C data used to derive the sunspot number:
http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-INTCAL98-14C.png
http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-SSN-14C.pdf (page 12)
Usoskin’s explanation of the random dynamo
http://www.leif.org/research/Usoskin-Grand-Minima-and-Dynamos.pdf
contain references to papers describing his analysis.
Bottom line, there is no regular pattern. but I do not wish for us to hijack this thread going over well trodden ground. Your sandbox is good for that.
kim (06:27:07) :
You’re hanging your belief that the solar dynamo worked ‘normally’ during the Maunder Minimum on cosmic ray proxy data. Perhaps that is wrong for some unguessed reason. I know you mentioned several others bits of evidence, but I suspect you are not certain that the solar dynamo works ‘normally’ during Grand Minima.
If we assume that all our data are wrong for some unknown reason many things become possible.
vukcevic (04:12:38) :
The spiral magnetic fields form in a plasma only in presence of an electric current. An explanation of helical magnetic fields and currents in plasma may be found here:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-345/ch15.htm#250
FlGURE 15.6.1. says: “the spiral magnetic field is unstable and can never be achieved.”
That reference is too outmoded to be of value today.
There are no connection between the spicules described in the the first paper and the solar wind. This whole thing is yet another pseudo-scientific speculation that has no value other than for entertainment. Hopefully this should be clear to the general readership.