This arrived in my email tonight from Bill Livingston. It is hot off the press, date June 11th. I believe WUWT readers will be some of the first to see this. – Anthony
Guest Essay by:
W. Livingston, National Solar Observatory, 950 N. Cherry Ave, Tucson AZ 85718;
M. Penn, National Solar Observatory, Tucson AZ
Physical conditions in the infrared at 1.5 microns, including maximum magnetic field strength and temperature, have been observed spectroscopically in 1391 sunspots 1990 to 2009 (1). We emphasize the quantitative difference between our IR sunspot measurements and the visible light results from most solar magnetographs employed world-wide. The latter are compromised by scattered light and measure flux, not field strength. A lower limit of ~1800 Gauss is required to form spot umbra. The umbral maximum field strength has declined over the above interval, perhaps because spots have on average diminished in size. The present condition of solar activity minimum has more spotless days than since the 1910s (2). The Cheshire Cat behavior is related to magnetic surface fields often appearing without accompanying dark spots.
Sunspots recently are behaving like a Cheshire Cat: the smile is there (magnetic fields) but the body is missing (no dark markings). We are unsure about past cycles but at present sunspots, with their usual umbrae and penumbrae, are failing to materialize. For hundreds of years the Sun has shown an approximately periodic 11-year alteration in its activity where the number of sunspots increases and then decreases. Sunspots are dark regions on the solar disk with magnetic field strengths greater than 1500-1800 Gauss. The last sunspot maximum occurred in 2001. Magnetically active sunspots at that time (Figure 1A) produced powerful flares, caused large geomagnetic disturbances, and disrupted some space-based technology.

At present, presumably leaving a deep solar minimum, nothing more than tiny spots, or “pores”, have been seen for some time (again
Figure 1B).

In the current solar minimum the number of spotless days has not been equaled since 1914 (2), see Figure 2. Some look at this figure and feel reassured; this has
happened before. Others sense abnormality.

Why is a lack of sunspot activity interesting? During a period from 1645 to 1715 the Sun entered an extended period of low activity known as the Maunder Minimum. For a time equivalent to several sunspot cycles the Sun displayed few sunspots. Models of the Sun’s irradiance suggest that the solar energy input to the Earth decreased during that epoch, and that this lull in solar activity may explain the low temperatures recorded in Europe during the Little Ice Age (3).
In 1990, working with S. Solanki, we began exploratory measurements at the McMath- Pierce telescope of the infrared magnetic field strength, temperature, and brightness in dark sunspot umbrae. These observations use the most sensitive probe of sunspot magnetic fields: Zeeman splitting of the infrared spectral line of Fe I at 1565 nm. This splitting yields total field strength not flux (see below). Because the splitting is always complete in sunspot umbrae the measurement is independent of atmospheric blurring, or seeing (providing the line is visible). Temperature was deduced from the depth of nearby molecular OH lines. Higher temperature meant brighter continuum intensity and weaker OH. Starting in 2000 this work became systematic, where each spot was measured only once at the darkest position in its umbra. The resulting data set of 1391 observations represents the longest time-sequence of total field strengths in sunspots. Figure 3 is a plot of these observations.

We believe most of the scatter is real; the errors are likely to be in intensity and not field strength. Sky transparency and image quality, or seeing, are of course somewhat variable and this affects intensity. Data with obvious clouds were discarded. Two conclusions: 1) there is not a unique relation between sunspot brightness and magnetic field and 2) the lower limit to the magnetic field to produce a dark marking is around 1500-1800 Gauss. This lower limit is uncertain because of noise in intensity (brightness) signals.
It was also found that the magnetic field strengths in umbrae were on average decreasing with time independent of the sunspot cycle. Or it may be that spots are simply getting smaller (4). OH has practically disappeared today. A simple linear extrapolation of our magnetic data suggests that sunspots might largely vanish by 2015, assuming the 1800 Gauss lower limit, see Figure 4.

The brightness and magnetic fields of large sunspots had earlier been discovered to change in-sync with the solar cycle as seen by ground-based telescopes (5). Automated solar magnetographs (e.g. Mt Wilson, Kitt Peak, SOHO) measure surface magnetic flux using spectral polarization signals from the Zeeman effect. Flux measurements are subject to scattered light; the fields they deduce in sunspot umbrae are much less, often by a factor of two, than the field strength given by the Fe 1564 nm splitting (6). The latter does not involve polarization sensing. Magnetograph instruments, however, are in wide use both in space and ground-based –with a time span going back over 50 years. They do record non-sunspot magnetic flux (which the simple non-polarized Fe 1564 nm splitting cannot do) and have detected the onset of the next solar cycle active regions. This deduction is based on the expected high solar latitude hemispheric magnetic polarity reversal, the “Hale cycle”. Yet all new cycle number 24 spots that we have observed have been tiny “pores” without penumbrae (e.g. Figure 1). Nearly all of these features are seen only on magnetograms and are difficult or impossible to see on white-light images. Thus the analogy to the Cheshire Cat [Roberts, 2009].
Physical explanations of this deep minimum are at present speculative. Modelers invoke flux transport, meridional flows, and other subsurface mechanisms. Whether this diminished vigor in sunspots is indicative of another Maunder Minimum, remains to be seen. We should mention, too, that the solar wind is reported to be in a lower energy state than found since space measurements began nearly 40 years ago (7). Will the Cheshire Cat Effect persist?
References:
1. Penn, M.J. and Livingston, W., Temporal Changes in Sunspot Umbral Magnetic
Fields and Temperatures, Astrophys. Jour., 649, L45-L48, (2006).
2. Janssens, J., Spotless days website, (2009)
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html
3. Lean, J., A. Skumanich, and O. White, Estimating the Sun’s Radiative Output
During the Maunder Minimum, Geophys. Res. Lett., 19(15), 1591–1594 (1992).
4. Schad, T.A., and Penn, M.J. (2008), Solar Cycle Dependence of Umbral
Magneto-Induced Line Broadening, EOS Trans. AGU 89(23), Jt. Assem. Suppl. Abstract
SP41B-06 (2008).
5. Albregtsen, F. and Maltby, P., Solar Cycle Variation of Sunspot Intensity, Solar
Physics, 71, 269-283 (1981).
6. Private communication from J. Harvey, (2009).
7. Fisk, L.A., and Zhao, L., The Heliospheric Magnetic Field and the Solar Wind
During the Solar Cycle, in Universal Heliophysical Processes, Proceedings of the
International Astronomical Union, IAU Symposium, Volume 257, pp 109-120 (2009).
Acknowledgement:
Roberts, Harry, Sydney Observatory, private communication re. Cheshire Cat (2009).
A PDF version of this essay is available here: Livingston-Penn_sunspots4
Firstly, thanks to all the real scientists out there at the coal face deciphering the truth for us laypeople. There is so much to learn as this blog and others such as this one http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/10/another-scientific-consensus-bites-the-dust/ have shown. Thanks to everyone who has the knowledge for debating and educating us all.
Secondly, thanks to the politicians who try to have a rational debate about AGW. Dennis Jensen MP (Liberal) in the Aussie parliament has tried more than once to have a proper debate about AGW in parliament. There are skeptics out there in our governments. Mr Jensen has a degree in physics and is probably the most qualified person to speak about this subject. He tries!
Thirdly, no thanks to the like of Sharon Grierson MP (Labor) in our federal parliament who recently shrieked across the floor of federal parliament during a debate on the ETS “We don’t care about the science!”. That says much for the mentality and motivations of our current government. I’m still looking for a link to the video of that moment or the Hansard transcript. That quote says it all. In the meantime, let’s encourage science to forge ahead and find the truth!
There were rallies on Saturday but the photographic evidence is limited and no wide angle shots of the masses are available.
This means we must rely on the reports from journo’s at the scene so the reports will be accurate to a fault.
Truth be told it was a big weekend of footy with the highlight being the Wallabies v Italy. You will all be relieved to know Australia won easily.
I would bet most people in the land of Oz could give you all the weekend sports scores before they could give info on the climate change rally.
Rally…what rally??
In the winter unless the weather affects the footy there is a general apathy towards the whole climate change thingy…but then, who really cares?
H/u is a report from the SMH.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/rally-declares-climate-emergency-20090614-c7bj.html
Leif Svalgaard (00:19:34) :
Here is another plot of Livingston’s data [he graciously keeps me up to date]: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn%20-%20Umbral%20Data.pdf
The pink points show the contrast [1 meaning invisible] and the black points the magnetic field. None of these data have been smoothed [I hate smoothing].
You smoothed the data by plotting those black and pink lines through the observations. That differs from the Hodrick-Prescott smoothing (which I love) only in the algorithm, not in the effect, which is present some notion of a trend.
Andrea (01:22:04) :
I’ve read Livingston&Penn’s work and I find it very fascinating but I think they are extrapolating datas over a too small time interval (1990-2006) with little significance…
I would say they are measuring, not extrapolating, except in a very cautious way, and within limits of some physical boundaries. In particular, look at FIgure 4, and please point out where the extrapolation occurs.
Richard111 (00:13:03) :
Any estimates for the number and size of spots that formed on the other side of the sun?
Since the Sun has a rotational period of about a month we are always seeing a constantly changing surface. There are certainly long periods during which the side of the Sun that we currently cannot see can birth a spot and have it completely disappear before we could see it, but this makes no difference to the actual observational data because:
a) this is the way we’ve observed the Sun historically – and recent changes to sunspot observation can only effect a relative increase in the number observed, not the other way around. As has already been pointed out, many spots which are now being counted and/or are being considered as spots simply couldn’t have been observed more than a few years ago
b) unless one invokes a new model (with no acting mechanism between the Sun and Earth that I could possibly image) with sunspots forming more (or less) frequently away from the Earth than otherwise there is no scientific justification for assuming that the sunspots on the observed side of the sun have any different frequency or intensity distribution than on the unobserved side. So the current visual measurements are perfectly acceptable samples of the actual total SSN until we have observatories that can see the other side or sense the other side through other means.
Over at SC24 we have been discussing the newest Sunspot #1020 which is behaving exactly as Dr. Livingston is describing. This would explain why officialdom is now counting sun-pores, such as the disappearing reappearing alleged Sunspot #1020 which only SOHO can see for one or two hour intervals but has earned itself a count of 12 for over three days now. Yes, Cheshire Cat would nicely describe #1020!
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=629&page=21#21753
Catania, NASA and SWPC are now in the Sunspot fabrication business, the counts are now bogus.
Mike
The BBC was caught out,apparently
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/bbc-and-climate-news-before-things-happen/
O/T
A curiosity I found
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6493481.ece
One thing that puzzles me about the relationship between TSI and solar cycles is the (apparent) thermodynamic requirement that over the “very long term” the time integral of intensity be equal to the total energy generated by fusion reactions in the solar core. I have read that the time required for energy produced in the solar core to reach the surface is many thousands of years. If true, and if the rate of energy production in the solar core is in fact constant (over less than geological periods), then variation in TSI around the very long term mean could potentially include extremely long period cyclical or chaotic characteristics. This long term variation could in turn produce significant long term cyclical or chaotic changes in Earth’s climate.
Perhaps Leif (or someone else with solar science knowledge) could comment on current understanding of the constancy of the fusion reactions in the solar core and the time required for fusion energy to reach the solar surface.
Perhaps Dr Svalgaard can answer this question.
solarcycle24.com has reported 2 counted sunspots in the last few days. These lasted for what seems to be a couple of hours. Indeed the site administrator at soloarcycle24.com was at work and didn’t even get to see one of the alleged sunspots.
I certainly didn’t get to see them.
Is a hour or two of a tiny tim now counted?
The wheels are turning in the MSM in Australia. An independent member of parliament who is holding the balance of power is now seriously questioning the science behind AGW. Professor Ian Pilmer’s book is making waves.
OT but the METOFFICE are at it again
“Met Office predict likelihood of climate change on your doorstep”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/5532147/Met-Office-predict-likelihood-of-climate-change-on-your-doorstep.html
“The most detailed set of climate change projections ever produced will show the risks of sea level rise, droughts and floods in Britain over the next 80 years to within 16 miles of your front door.”
The Gods are grinning at us through the clouds.
=============================
Leif, 1:23:28
While I’m not certain whether or not I land in that crowd, I’d say evidence of increased TSI during the Maunder Minimum and cooler global temperatures just adds bricks to the edifice of belief that the sun’s effect on climate is not a simple function of TSI, as it so obviously isn’t. If the effect is through clouds, then small TSI changes can be magnified. And if, as it seems from Roy Spencer’s cogitations and measurements, that the feedback is negative often enough for the system to be self-centering, then the mechanism to prevent runaways from the magnification is present also. So what changes the clouds, if not in direction from TSI?
======================================
==========================================
Livingston-Penn_sunspots4 comes up with a 404 file not found error.
[…..”Andrea (01:22:04) :
I’ve read Livingston&Penn’s work and I find it very fascinating but I think they are extrapolating datas over a too small time interval (1990-2006) with little significance…”]
That’s half the Satellite era Andrea. They can only work with the technology available to get the data they have….. I think you are being a bit harsh.
…. as Basil points out. They are measuring not extrapolating. These are observations. Real Science stuff… not computer models or statistical “reanalysis” of pre existing data.
Christopher Booker has a reference to sunspot activity and crop yields today.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5525933/Crops-under-stress-as-temperatures-fall.html?state=error#postacomment
I posted a response as feedback but it’s not getting through, Here’s what I wrote. Did I say something bad?
Crops respond to Weather not Climate and CB is painting for us a gloomy but factual summary.
Our political masters should not ignore this message by muttering the mantra. Weather is not Climate. That will not fill an empty belly
It is strange, is it not, how imaginative predictions of 300,000 deaths from CC are accepted as fact by so many, while verifiable and factual figures on food-production given here give rise to torrents of scorn, ad-hominem attacks and hubristic pontification.
If CB were to tell us that the sun will rise tomorrow then, no doubt, the usual suspects would be out in force and howling him down.
What is the problem with the words -“message”,”messenger”- that some of you just don’t get?
Gerard…. [“Did you not know, Aussie PM Kevin Rudd is the modern equivalent of King Canute.”]
I get your point… But you actually have the King Canute story backwards.
The actual message is that King Canute was sick of being seen as a living God by his people. So he went down to the shore with his subjects and declared that he would hold back the tide…. Of course he failed… Thus he proved to his subjects that there was a higher power than he…. Thus he converted to Christianity as did his subjects.
Kevin Rudd is the other way. He thinks he is a God and can stop the Earth Warming. He is yet to be humbled….. Perhaps this is the beginning;-)
Basil (05:44:52) :
The pink points show the contrast [1 meaning invisible] and the black points the magnetic field. None of these data have been smoothed [I hate smoothing].
You smoothed the data by plotting those black and pink lines through the observations. That differs from the Hodrick-Prescott smoothing (which I love) only in the algorithm, not in the effect, which is present some notion of a trend.
I disagree. I show all of the data, not just a smoothed version. The trend lines are not smoothing [as was not the linear trend in Livingston’s].
Przemysław Pawełczyk (03:50:39) :
The text in National Geographic is disconnected (chaotic). Total mish-mash.
Journalists often do that. Not much can be done about it.
BTW. A layman’s question. Is there any collation of the most important solar indices (from sci point of view) with attached short comments why they should be concidered together or NOT in making judgements about present and future state of the Sun?
I have a page with what I use:
http://www.leif.org/research/Most%20Recent%20IMF,%20SW,%20and%20Solar%20Data.pdf
and
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
A few quick notes:
1) Of all phenomena discussed on WUWT, this the most intriguing and worthwhile news, by my fancies.
2) This doesn’t say much that isn’t in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/ the new paper clarifies some stuff (very welcome) and updates things to the present (very welcome). The old paper has more info on the OH- sprectral lines and other core science and is still worth reading. This is not a criticism! Confirmation that things continue to happen as extrapolated into the future is valuable news.
3) IIRC, Science rejected the paper on the grounds it was too statistical and didn’t propose mechanisms behind what’s observed. Fair enough, but clearly this phenomenon needs to be communicated widely, like a decade before 2015 so it can be studied better. We lost those years!
4) Many, many thanks for everyone behind getting this “in print” first at WUWT.
John F. Hultquist (22:42:34) :
note
Thousands of demonstrators have rallied across Australia to demand greater government action to protect the environment from climate change.
These people make me despair. Why don’t all the warm-mongers out there just get rid of your cars, all your electrical appliances, switch off your electricity, get rid of anything plastic in your house, I could go on….
And how did you all travel to the rallies? Did you use any fossil fuels? Shame on you if you did!
Why not show us that you really care by making the sacrifices now?
Wait for it . . . wait for it . . .
(The “Watt Effect”)
Figure 4 is quite interesting. An alteration which seems unaffected by the 11 year Schwabe cycle, implying a cause which is not controlled by the Schwabe cycle yet its effect is visible within the Schwabe cycle’s spots.
In figure 4, I see a dip-and-recover pattern with about a 4 year cycle. 11/3 is nearly 4, so maybe that 4 year cycle is related to the Schwabe cycle. A relationship might be more apparent by comparing the peaks and dips to the sunspot counts during the same period. I see that Xanthakis, Poulakos and Petropoulos, 1992 noticed a 4 year period in one cycle.
Also, this summary only mentions measurements taken at one observatory. Have several instruments been used, to reduce the possibility that the decrease is due to the instrumentation becoming less sensitive? Have any measurements been confirmed at other facilities, to reduce the chance that the decrease is due to something at one location?
Leif
How well would a “camera obscura” work in counting sunspots and defining their parts?
Leif Svalgaard (00:23:49) :“if the field strength falls to some 1500-1800 Gauss, the contrast is so close to one that the spot is invisible. If the field strength falls well below 1500 Gauss, the sunspot will appear bright rather than dark.”
Is this taken into consideration when reviewing historical accounts of the very low number of observed sunspots? Since those early astronomers couldn’t measure field strength how can we know if it wasn’t low Gauss that was simply “hiding” the spots rather than there actually being only a few spots?
First time poster….
Check out this site: http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/
It has a very convincing arguement that the sun is electrical in nature, with a solid iron surface (which is what you see as sunspots). It’s very throrough and uses actual data and images from NASA’s own equipment to back his observations up. Take a look.
REPLY: While interesting, the website has a number of flawed assumptions. While the sun does likely contain some iron, the claim of a “sold iron surface” is dubious at best, and I’m being kind. – Anthony
No, no, no. You have all got it soooo wrong! How do I know? Because the UK Met. Office tells me so.
They have mapped out exactly where and when and how the evil AGW and the dastardly CO2 are going to blight Blighty.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/5532147/Met-Office-predict-likelihood-of-climate-change-on-your-doorstep.html