Another anemic solar cycle 23 sunspeck, could 19th century astronomers have seen it?
From Spaceweather.com
SUNSPOT 1016: A ring-shaped sunspot numbered 1016 has emerged near the sun’s equator. Its magnetic polarity identifies it as a member of old Solar Cycle 23. Until these old cycle sunspots go away, the next solar cycle will remain in abeyance.
Leif Svalgaard (22:37:52)
Thank you Dr. Svalgaard for a most enthralling exposition.
I remember as a child visiting the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia. While I have no idea if it is still there, one of the exhibits was a solar observatory that projected an image of the sun from a telescope onto a white screen which appeared to be about like the stuff that artist’s canvas is made of. The image of the Sun seemed to be about three to four feet in diameter and I remember spots being clearly visible at the time. This would have been some time in the 1970’s.
Leif 22:37:52
Thanks for that bulletin. That ties a lot of things together. Marvelous. How’s that for a label, Anthony? And thank you, Anthony and moderators. It’s easy to support such a great team.
=============================================
This must be it. So on a day when there is one of these “specks”, maybe a reader in Philadelphia can go down there and see if they can see it at the solar observatory there. The equipment there would be comparable, I think, to what was available to scientists going back 100 to possibly 150 years. That is, unless they have replaced it with a downloaded image from a satellite now.
I have emailed Dr. Tony Phillips over at spaceweather.com three times now asking exactly these questions concerning instruments and methods used in the early 1900’s and how they compare to those used today. I specifically asked about the spot that broke the 22 spotless day run and minute spots over the past couple of weeks and whether or not those would have been visible in 1913. I have yet to get any response at all. I agree that a side by side comparison using old and new technology should be done.
BUT Leif Svalgaard (22:37:52) :
How many spots “should” there have been (April 2009) using 10.7cm or 1/5 flux of the magnetic…..
can you “show” us the invisible spots/specks with these methods?
And please refrain from the should is a weasel word analogy.
Thank you from a cantankerous old man! 🙂
I have to admit, I am perversely enjoying these Sun news and projected colder period. Some folks would deserve to be tarred and feathered, though. At the end, I love cold and snowy winters. For me, repeat of 1907 Damon minimum would be very welcomed!
Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) (23:43:27) :
How many spots “should” there have been (April 2009) using 10.7cm or 1/5 flux of the magnetic…..
can you “show” us the invisible spots/specks with these methods?
The relation between F10.7 and sunspot number is not from day to day, but more like from month to month, or even year to year. The standard relation between the two is
F10.7 = 63.74 + 0.727*SSN + 0.000895*SSN**2
which you can then solve for SSN, given that F10.7 right now is 70.5 flux units. From that you calculate SSN = 9.2, but as Tapping points out the standard relation may not be working anymore.
And please refrain from the ‘should’ is a weasel word analogy.
‘should’ is not a weasel word in science. Given a formula y = 10*x + 5, y ‘should’ be 25 for x = 2. ‘Should’ simply expresses that if the relationship holds then such and such value is expected. At least that is the meaning I attached to my usage of that word in my posting. “Words mean what I say they do, Humpty Dumpty declared. No more, and no less.”
I think that what Leif is saying is that (a) each observer needs to be treated differently. Consequently, given a specific small spot, you can’t say that it was invisible in 1900. Different observers have different capabilities. (b) Even if you did pick a particular observer, you really don’t know whether or not they could see that particular small spot. Maybe there would have been bad weather that day. (c) What you end up with is a statistical relationship between spots seen now and spots seen then. And finally, (d), don’t worry, the experts have spent far more time than the vast majority of us amateurs or dilettantes, and have taken care of these things.
In any case, we’re seeing very little sunspots and cycle 23 is lasting a very long time.
The thing I’d like to know is whether or not the sunspots stay in sync over longer time when they go through a period of complete inactivity. What I’m asking is “is there some sort of time keeping that goes on even when the spots are invisible”. From the deviation between F10.7 and number of sunspots, and the decreasing visibility of spots, I suspect that there is a long term continuity to the things. Too bad they couldn’t detect polarity 200 years ago.
After that, I’d be interested in what the Fourier transform of the sunspot cycles look like. I suspect that if I looked around, I’d find an article or two on this. But what I’d really like is more exact timing information. What is the point on a cycle that is steadiest, and what are the characteristics of that part of the cycle?
thanks for the formula…. now to plug it into the data!!! vs versa
F10.7 = 63.74 + 0.727*SSN + 0.000895*SSN**2
which you can then solve for SSN, given that F10.7 right now is 70.5 flux units. From that you calculate SSN = 9.2, but as Tapping points out the standard relation may not be working anymore.
>Until these old cycle sunspots go away, the next solar cycle will remain in abeyance.
Is there any scientific support for this theory, or are you just being creative here? My understanding was that the underlying process for each cycle was very weakly coupled, and each new cycle starts to form several years before it’s first spot is seen – not long after the peak of the previous cycle has passed. Cycle 23 is just twitching – maybe the emergence of 24 in anger will sweep up the remains, but that is all.
carlbrannen (00:20:06) :
After that, I’d be interested in what the Fourier transform of the sunspot cycles look like.
It looks like this:
http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-Power-Spectrum-SSN-1700-2008.png
Note that there are many curves. Since the sunspot cycle observations do not extend infinitely long in time there are going to be ‘end-effects’. We can get a handle of how disturbing they are by computing the FFT over the full interval, then over the full interval minus one year, then minus two years, etc [up to 20 years for this example]
@ur momisugly Robert Bateman:
Catania uses an Ha filter and CCD camera to take daily HA images of the sun.
http://web.ct.astro.it/sun/solec.jpg
They do a projection of the sun to determine the SSN. Its impossible to use an HA filter and do a sunspot count.
Btw, sunspecks also get count during maximum. We see them, so we should count them. Everything you observe should be logged.
Leif Svalgaard (22:37:52) :
The question of whether the sunspot number two hundred years ago…
Thanks for the knowledgeable and complete answer. Your expertise is astonishing.
Anthony; I feel it would serve a useful purpose for the post by Leif Svalgaard (22:37:52) to be made available in “Resources” so that each time sunspots become a topic a poster can point to it when others begin reinventing the wheel.
Aside from the fact that it will save Leif’s (always so graciously given) time, it will cut a lot of chaff from such threads ─ and prevent some of us from making fools of ourselves with a new enlightenment we just have to thrust upon a world-in-waiting…
DJ: According to some sources, temp lags by +-7 years. Solar activity peaked in 1990, temps peaked in 1998, so this quiet of 08/09 should technically be felt on earth in +-2015/16; according to some.
As far as I can tell, this cycle 23 spots outweigh cycle 24 spots for april, so surely minimum can’t be established yet.
DJ (18:47:47) :
Global temperatures continue to run well above average and the sun remains quite. How much longer before we are willing to admit that this is entirely consistent with the enhanced greenhouse effect?
This is a common error of thinking, that the momentaneous state of the Sun determines the momentaneous state of the planet. In fact, it’s the accumulated effect over time. Solar activity has been below average for the last 5-6 years, maybe longer. As a result the amount of heat received and stored in the Earth system has been decreased (through direct and, more importantly, indirect effects, such as cloud cover) and the accumulated effect of that over a long period, 10-15 years perhaps will drive the temperature down.
It has been estimated that the excess heat accumulated over the previous 30-40 years due to high Solar activity has now shrunk by 30-40% and is rapidly going down.
Thus, it can be expected that with continued low Solar activity in about 5 years we’ll be back at where the system was in 1950, and go downwards from there. If Solar activity picks up again, we’d see the effects 5-10 years later.
So it’s just the lag in the system, and no evidence whatsoever for the GH effect.
Something strange from the Independent
http://news.independentminds.livejournal.com/2281641.html
Full article
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-missing-sunspots-is-this-the-big-chill-1674630.html
Unless you have very good telescope optics and good “seeing” (i.e. seeing=disturbance in image quality due to local air turbulence) such specs are not visible at all.
This spot was slightly larger than some of the others we have (not) seen the last 6 months, so maybe it may have been noted by good observers in favourable locations. The ones in late March and early April would not have been seen by anyone on the ground.
Gerry (18:50:16) :
NOAA counted 15 sunspots today:
http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/sept/swcenter/sunspot.html
More precisely, the sunspot number was 15. It was one group (10) with 5 spots, 10+5=15
Leif Svalgaard (22:37:52)
Thank you Dr. Leif Svalgaard
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (02:31:32) :
I agree. And you have to be projecting near zenith for such faint fuzzies.
carlbrannen (00:20:06) :
I think that what Leif is saying is that (a) each observer needs to be treated differently. Consequently, given a specific small spot, you can’t say that it was invisible in 1900.
I can, I have, and I will continue to say so.
If you are not an experienced observer, and are unaware of the the tremendous handicap offered by ccd detection, you have no idea.
To know before even beginning a task that there are X number of spots, the mind is pre-biased and determined to make the known outcome detected at the drawing.
We all know what happens to students caught cheating on an exam.
The test is invalid as far as the teacher is concerned, and so is the grade thereby given: Fail.
So too are spots purported to be observed that are in fact pre-biased towards detection by technological handicap.
M White (02:31:31) :
It is very tempting to use the sun as a public relations battering ram to counteract AGW. It is something the media can “understand” and probagete.
I think as skeptics we have to be skeptical of this too, i.e. a strong correlation of current sun condition to global temperature, until it is a proven fact.
Firstly because the correlation is not proven, it could be fortuitous that the Maunder minimum had low solar activity, and secondly there is fifty fifty chance that cycle 24 will pick up soon and we will be left with creme on our face, similar to the one the AGW have, though they still have to realize it.