Sunspots Today: A Cheshire Cat – New Essay from Livingston and Penn

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.

Livingston-Penn-Chesire_Fig1A
Figure 1a. An image of a sunspot from near the maximum of the last solar cycle, cycle 23, taken at the McMath-Pierce telescope on 24 October 2003. The sunspots clearly show a dark central umbra surrounded by a brighter, filamentary penumbra. The magnetic fields seen here range from 1797 to 3422 Gauss.

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

Figure 1B).

Livingston-Penn-Chesire_Fig1B
Figure 1b. An image of a pore – a tiny sunspot with no penumbral structure – taken from the MDI instrument on the SOHO spacecraft, 11 January 2009; this is an example of what we observe today at solar minimum. The larger pore had a magnetic field of 1969 Gauss. Presently, the solar surface is mostly devoid of spots. Both images have the same spatial scale, and are roughly 360 Mm horizontally.

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.

Livingston-Penn-Chesire_Fig2
Figure 2. Number of spotless days at cycle minima in the past.

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.

Livingston-Penn-Chesire_Fig3
Figure 3. Maximum magnetic field vs. continuum brightness for all data 1990-2009.

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.

Livingston-Penn-Chesire_Fig4
Figure 4. The maximum sunspot total field strength is plotted versus time, during the period from 1992 to Feb 2009; a 12 point running mean is shown, and a linear fit to the data is made. Apart from a few measurements, the linear trend has been seen to continue throughout the present solar minimum.

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

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

190 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
The Macolyte
June 14, 2009 1:47 pm

What I don’t understand is why SLIOCH, bane of climate realists – cherry-picker of all AGW arguments (and nay-sayer of every and anything that negates the AGW case) and undiscerning disciple of Tamino, does not log on here and destroy all of your arguments.
‘Slioch” for those who have not encountered him,is a term for ‘spear’. He claims to live in the Highlands of Scotland, to have geological training and to be an all-knowing doom-sayer.

June 14, 2009 1:58 pm

Werner Weber (12:32:23):
Leif,
You indicated that data on small cosmic ray intensities during Maunder miinimum exist:
the Beer et al Be-10 data shown in their Nature 348, 520 (1990) paper seem to follow quiet well the sunspot activities from 1700 to present. I have only the figure of the Solanki et al Nature 408, 445 (2000) at hand., which show big cosmic ray activity around 1700.
Are there other data, which indicate small cosmic ray activity through the Maunder minimum?

Obviously, and thanks to genetics, I’m not Leif; there are other data which indicate the intensity of solar irradiance during the Maunder Minimum. As timetochooseagain has pointed out, the intensity of interstellar cosmic rays would be higher during a solar minimum, if and only if Svensmark’s theorem is correct.
I’ve still not derived the equation on the correlation of HSG and TSI, but you could frame the picture as from this graph:
http://www.biocab.org/HSG_and_TSI.jpg
Notice the abrupt declining of the HSG curve related to the last 70 years. I’m trying to obtain data from North Atlantic sedimentary cores for extrapolating the correct amount of iron stained grains during the last period.

John F. Hultquist
June 14, 2009 2:21 pm

Jimmy Haigh (07:34:01) : & a few others “ ..warm-mongers.. ??
Some of you today seem to be wound pretty tightly. All I did was post a note to a news item. It is possible that someone might be interested and have missed it, and, for all I know it may have been a big deal.
You assumed, or so it seems, that I was one of the demonstrators and wanted to boast about it. Wrong. I live in rural Washington State in the Pacific Northwest USA.
I did post my view on ClimateRealists today – 5th comment –here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3575&linkbox=true
This is in response to the comments on an article by Christopher Booker on
“ Crops under stress as temperatures fall .”
So here is what John thinks:
I look at Roy Spencer’s “Latest Global Temperatures” that are from satellites and globally averaged. We seem to be very close to the temperature average over the time period Jan. 1979 to May 2009. From articles and comments I take it that the warming from the El Nino (shown on his chart) of 1998 has now left the atmosphere and generally we are now cooler than the period from about 2001 to 2007 while this occurred.
I also believe Earth has been warming since the last major glacial period – pick your favorite date as to when the temperature was the coldest, the ice mass was greatest, the ice extent was largest, or ice was essentially gone from previously inhabited areas. With some stops, restarts, and major reverses this warming seems to be happening still. Thus, it is not unexpected to have temperatures fractionally higher now than in previous years when a long time frame and global averages are concerned.
Crops are late in the northern USA and parts of Canada this year as they were last year. While food crops are important I pay attention to the budding, flowering and growth of wine grapes. Growers and wine makers care about such things and keep close track of what the vines are doing each Spring.
(I have friends in the industry. — added here at WUWT)
We do also know that CO2 continues to be added to the atmosphere by natural and human causes. By claiming a lot of wiggle room the AGW group claims the current few years of weather is not out of bounds with respect to the scenarios produced by the models. Fair enough. The Sun is quite quiet at the moment. I don’t know what the portends. Do you? Let’s all chill a bit, have a grilled steak and a beer if you’re a CO2 fan or carrot sticks if you are not. Stop calling each other names. Let dollars and smart people flow to good science and stop wasting resources on ever elaborate extrapolations of an assumption that seems (to me) to be in tatters by science and nature both.

Robert Wood
June 14, 2009 2:32 pm

That photo of large sun spots I find eery. We are looking into the Sun, through a hole in teh oputer layer, and it is dark!
Interestingly, some of the internal layers of the Sun are opaque, to different wavelengths and particles. It is a very convoluted process for energy to escape from the interior of the Sun.

John F. Hultquist
June 14, 2009 2:59 pm

Robert Wood (14:32:17) : “We are looking into the Sun, …”
My thought is that you are being too literal or even simplistic about what the sensors are showing us. I don’t think we are looking through a hole.
However, as you also wrote “ . . . teh oputer layer . . .” maybe you have had one too many and will feel better on Monday.

Raven
June 14, 2009 3:59 pm

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/06/09_betelim.shtml
“Long-term monitoring by UC Berkeley’s Infrared Spatial Interferometer (ISI) on the top of Mt. Wilson in Southern California shows that Betelgeuse (bet’ el juz), which is so big that in our solar system it would reach to the orbit of Jupiter, has shrunk in diameter by more than 15 percent since 1993.”

Ted Annonson
June 14, 2009 4:02 pm

Farside sunspot info can be found at
http://soi.stanford.edu/data/full_farside/
Thanks for all of you that couldn’t see all of the NOAA spots. I was afraid I was going blind.

LilacWine
June 14, 2009 4:08 pm

Just Want Results… (13:36:29) : I can only find reference to Grierson’s comment in Andrew Bolt’s blog http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/forum_thursday_june_4 . It was apparently said on June 3rd. Hansard isn’t online yet. I suspect we’ll have to wait a couple of weeks for that. As for video, I don’t know where to find that! :-S

Robert Wood
June 14, 2009 4:39 pm

The Macolyte @13:47:27:
SLIOCH,Tamino, Hansen, Streig and the other guys: do they really exist or are they just Gore sock puppets? I am even beginning to believe that the aninymous Et Al is simply an inside joke by Al’s offspring.

June 14, 2009 4:47 pm

Raven,
For a very interesting perspective on the sizes of various stars compared to the Sun, see here: click
[The gif takes a few seconds to load and start. Well worth the wait.]

Robert Wood
June 14, 2009 4:49 pm

Raven 15:59:01
Uh-oh … extra-solar cooling!! We’re all going to die, I tell ya; we’re all going to die!

Robert Wood
June 14, 2009 4:59 pm

Nasif Nahle @13:58:50
No Nasif, no one is arguing that cosmic ray incidence on the Earth does not increase during Solar magnetic minima; Svensmark argues that they produce more clouds in the tropics and increase Erath’s albedo.
The theory, and data, on cosmic rays, suggest that this happens every 22 years, not every single 11-year solar cycle but every other. This is due to the direction of the solar magnetic field, which in one dirction favours cosmic rays entering the Earth system from the polar directions, and every other cycle, entering from the equatorial regions … where any cloud formation would have a dramatic impact on albedo, right where it hurts.
Now, did you, at school physics, have a toy cloud chamber where you could see atomic tracks due to cloud formation – hence the name of the apparatus? I buy the argument, and reckon that even the slightest variation on albedo has big impact on climate. But, cosmic rays aren’t the only mechanism that forms clouds.

June 14, 2009 5:02 pm

Smokey (16:47:39):
Raven,
For a very interesting perspective on the sizes of various stars compared to the Sun, see here: click
[The gif takes a few seconds to load and start. Well worth the wait.]

And the minuscule inhabitants of that Lilliputian blue speck want to extinguish the Sun?

Robert Wood
June 14, 2009 5:02 pm

John F. Hultquist (14:59:09) :
However, as you also wrote “ . . . teh oputer layer . . .” maybe you have had one too many and will feel better on Monday.
Hahaha, fortunately, I was cold sober at 2 pm on a Sunday iafternoon in Ottawa, Canada. Unfortunately, my digits run ahead of my neurons.

June 14, 2009 5:08 pm

Robert Wood (16:59:21):
Nasif Nahle @13:58:50
No Nasif, no one is arguing that cosmic ray incidence on the Earth does not increase during Solar magnetic minima…

Me either… Heh! 🙂
…Svensmark argues that they produce more clouds in the tropics and increase Erath’s albedo…
Me too… 😉
…But, cosmic rays aren’t the only mechanism that forms clouds.
Check! Heh!
What I’m saying, not arguing, is that there are other methodologies for knowing, more or less, the intensity of solar irradiance in past eras. HSG, f.ex. 🙂

June 14, 2009 5:41 pm

rbateman (23:04:51) :
Outstanding work Bill Livingston.
Most of the spots we have seen this year are truly pores.
A group called Ergebrisse has been calculating the “sunpores” in a more precise manner than SWPC/NOAA.
I will post up graphs of thier counts sometime in the next day or so

That will be a great complement of this work by Livingston and Penn.

MattB
June 14, 2009 6:06 pm

Anyone else see the massive spike on the Oulu neutron monitor.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/

Editor
June 14, 2009 6:20 pm

> 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
I notice that the pink line is given as “dy = 0.0177 dx” and the black line is given as “dy = -43 dx”. This implies straight lines. However, it appears that the “lines” are actually curves, with a negative 2nd derivative. This is not an optical illusion. I imported the image into a graphics program, magnified it 300%, and plotted straight lines to the endpoints. There is a definite curvature, moreso for the black line. Straight lines would intercept around the year 2020 in both cases. Comments?

June 14, 2009 6:25 pm

The Macolyte (13:47:27) :
‘Slioch” for those who have not encountered him,is a term for ’spear’. He claims to live in the Highlands of Scotland, to have geological training and to be an all-knowing doom-sayer.
I’ve never heard of “Slioch” (the person: I’ve heard of Slioch the spear). I’m a geologist from the Scottish Highlands as well. There aren’t too many of us I would think so maybe I know him (or her). Having said that, he/she sounds pretty pretentious so he/she won’t be a mate.

Just Want Results...
June 14, 2009 6:42 pm

LilacWine (16:08:40) : As for video, I don’t know where to find that!
I take you have nothing like C-SPAN, 24 hour political video.

jorgekafkazar
June 14, 2009 7:21 pm

Neil Jones (05:57:50) : “O/T. A curiosity I found: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6493481.ece
Verrrry interesting.

Pat
June 14, 2009 7:32 pm

“Jennyinoz (05:34:27) :
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?”
And it is exactly this “apathy” I see in Australia, New Zealand and the UK which allows our politicians to run roughshod over all of us in the climate change space. As long as the footy is on TV and they can get to beer and KFC, they don’t care and will allow any crackpot ponzi scheme to be implemented.

Pat
June 14, 2009 8:14 pm

Although I don’t like to use averages to compare absolutes…but…
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/perth-shivers-through-coldest-night-of-the-year-20090614-c79h.html
Perth, Western Australia, shivers at 3c, 6c below average.

cktheman
June 14, 2009 8:31 pm

Hunter – “cktheman,
Please explain to us unlightened many about how a solid iron solar surface has managed to stay hidden these many years from literally thousands of spectroscopic studies?
The last thing AGW skeptics need, imho, is for fringe pseudo science highjacking anything.
AGW highjacked climate science. We do not need distractions on our side.”
That’s very harsh. I can’t explain – it’s not my study, I didn’t conduct it, nor have I conducted studies on the sun at anyime in my life. I was just pointing out that the site contained a very interesting theory about the potential composition of the sun, with some very interesting, and convincing hypothesis – nothing more.
One of the main arguments against these enviro-wacko AGW ninnies is that they do not tolerate or investigate any scientific studies that disprove AGW hypothesis, period. The reasons for this are many, but this principle applies to all science including all existing hypothesis in all disciplines up to this point in time.
But I don’t see anything pseudo science there – all he did was take the running images (from NASA) in the iron spectrum and ‘observed’ – you can observe as well. He created his own hypothesis based on these ‘observations’ and other available data. If you did look at the site, and really read the content, it’s convincing enough to at least be studied further, rather than being outright dismissed. I always keep in the back of my mind the ridiculed and ostracized doctor and his wild theory that bacteria causes stomach ulcers. We all know how that turned out.
So, please don’t go the same route as the AGW ninnies – science must challenge the establishment or cease to exist as a useful entity.

Nick Yates
June 14, 2009 8:43 pm

Does anyone know how the CERN experiment to test Svenmark’s cloud theory is shaping up? It’s due to start properly in 2010 according to this.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/338170/svensmark-2007cosmoclimatology