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
“Paul R (22:09:18) :
Pat I agree but is it all apathy or a fair bit of disgust? If you have a look at that parliament video I guarantee you’ll need something stronger than beer.”
Total disgust. I thought British politics was a pantomime (I mean it still was/is, look at Thatcher, Blair, Brown etc), but Australian and New Zealand pollies take it to new hights. Not a single one of them has, so far, earnt my vote.
New Zealand’s ex PM, Helen Clark, was one of the most highly paid politicians, income relative to GDP that is.
“Jennyinoz (22:35:50) :
Pat…Psych down, I was kidding.
It’s not just the footy we like. Netball is popular too.”
This is the problem. Mis-placed values, and it shows in the media and attention to sports. How much coverage does sport get in the news? More than 50%? How sports personalities get all the medical help they need, for instance, during this ‘flu scare. Yet “ordinary” people, and their GP’s, have to wait. While you watch/follow any given “popular” sport, your politicians pass legislation that sends manufacturing jobs overseas, or sets up their guilt edge pension schemes etc etc…
Could someone please point me to where I can get polar magnetic field strength data as per this graph: http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PFdiv.gif .
David Archibald (18:47:36) :
Could someone please point me to where I can get polar magnetic field strength data
Vukcevic has a formula that will give you the polar field at any time thousands of years in the future or in the past, so you don’t need observations. In case you want some anyway, the polar fields were first reliably determined by Svalgaard et al, see http://www.leif.org/research/The%20Strength%20of%20the%20Sun's%20Polar%20Fields.pdf . The observations have continued to the present day and can be found here: http://wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html
David Archibald (15:18:58) :
The F 10.7 flux is down to 67. The Sun is still flatlining.
As usual you are ill-informed [or rather, ignorant of the effect of the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit]. The F10.7 is NOT flatlining; what you think is flatlining is just the compensating effects of F10.7 increasing and the distance to the Sun increasing in concert. The ‘real’ flux must be corrected for distance as in this plot:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
WordPress mangled the link. Here is a better one: http://www.leif.org/research/The%20Strength%20of%20the%20Sun%27s%20Polar%20Fields.pdf
Leif Svalgaard (19:31:19)
In case you want some anyway , the polar fields were first reliably determined by Svalgaard et al, see
Excellent job Leif. I’ve always been a big user of this in regards to forecasting several things from way out. I guess I owe you one.
Leif Svalgaard (19:31:19) :
“Be careful of what you wish for, you may get it.” Aphelion is only a few weeks away, perhaps David will point out that the subsequent climb in F10.7 is solely due to eccentricity and jerk your chain thusly for the next six month. 🙂
David Archibald (15:18:58)
The F 10.7 flux is down to 67. The Sun is still flatlining.
David,
I wouldn’t put to much emphasis on lower flux numbers showing up on and off and this is not all that uncommon. Because certain longitudes will become hot spots for extended periods just like some areas become less active. And you can even see these low values show up months after triple digit readings, like we saw during the beginning of Cycle 23.
Now I would be more concerned if the entire rotation stayed very low and not just parts of it for an extended period. But we also need to consider this cycles probable outcome, lower level. And the ascending part of the solar cycle is similar to the development of the La Nina and El Nino. It waxes and wanes, 2-3 steps forward, another step backwards…on and on.
So patience will be a virtue with Cycle 24.
Darn. The next US Presidential election year is 2012…
An interesting read. Thank you, Anthony, for the post. And thanks also to Livingston & Penn for sharing with you (and us).
The link to the PDF of this article is only providing a page not found error:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/13/files/2009/06/livingston-penn_sunspots4.pdf
(Please feel free to delete this comment. I looked for but could not find a way to send an email to the moderator. I’m sure I’m missing it.)
REPLY: Hmm…you are right. It WAS working. – Will check into why it is not now. – Anthony
REPLY2: fixed, wordpress temporary link of some sorts the real one is:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/livingston-penn_sunspots4.pdf
O/T, but nice.
At the SPD conference here in Boulder, Janet Luhman gave the ‘Parker Lecture’ and ended her talk with a slide showing her sources.
The top three were WUWT, NOAA, NASA, in that order, and a fair fraction of her slides were just lifted off WUWT.
REPLY: That’s just terrible! 😉 – Anthony
I would like to point out, respectfully, that ALL the numbers are low.
Relatively speaking, they have all sloughed off.
Right now, we have a nudge in one set of numbers, but yet they all are low.
We see the real data.
We know about the Tiny Tims.
We know about the UHI effects and the placement of stations.
We know about the issues with Sea Ice Sensors going awry.
We know about the oceans filpping cold.
We know about crops in stress and late planting seasons.
We don’t know what tomorrow brings, but we surely know about the reluctance of the system to bust out of it.
Ever since I started doubting the AGW hypothesis (shortly after Gore’s inconvenient “truth”) I have been looking at the sun climate connection.
Since sunspots seem to have a connection to global temperatures and at the same time there is not a huge difference in solar irradiance between times of solar activity and quiet, the obvious culprit seems to be solar faculae. These in turn are connected with solar wind. It is solar storms and wind that directly hit the Earth that would effect our climate and not those that whizz harmlessly by, into space. Of course more would be expected to hit the Earth if there more around, which happens when the sun is active.
Apparently one Theodor Landscheidt (deceased) forecast in 1989 a period of sunspot minima after 1990, accompanied by increased cold, with a stronger minima and more intense cold which should peak in 2030, which he called the “Landscheidt Minimum”. Whereas I was quite disappointed to read that he dabbled in “astrology”?, I read his paper on the Solar Wind – Global Temperature connection and it seemed to make a lot of sense to me.
Particularly he points out a 6 year lag between solar activity and global temperatures. He also points out that CO2 forcing fails to halt the fall of temperatures due to an inactive sun, which should be obvious from ice-core data, as rising CO2 levels have invariably failed to halt the recurring ice-ages.
His paper is available here: http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen/SolarWind.html
Would anyone care to comment?
I do know that the coronal holes are associated with the high-speed solar winds, but I don’t know too much about the low-speed winds being closely assosciated with the faculae.
Right now, the faculae are in about as bad a shape as the sunspots.
Since counting of them changed hands and left a big gap, I get a fuzzy picture of them decreasing over the last 2 decades or so in relative sizes.
Greenwich/USAF network dropped out in 1982. Archived data available.
SONNE picks up in 1996 and has onsite data.
San Fernando Obs. goes back to 1988 here:
http://www.csun.edu/sfo/afac.gif
but has no onsite data.
rbateman (15:37:47) :
San Fernando Obs. goes back to 1988 here:
http://www.csun.edu/sfo/afac.gif
but has no onsite data.
I have their data in almost real-time …
In a list format?
rbateman (15:37:47)
Greenwich/USAF network dropped out in 1982. Archived data available.
SONNE picks up in 1996 and has onsite data.
Funding was canceled in 2005 but some have graciously kept it updated. Even up to April 2009.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch.shtml
On another note. It looks like a new region is starting to emerge in the SW hemisphere. I guess it was to late in the day for the SWPC data but maybe they count it tomorrow if it sticks around.
rbateman (17:57:49) :
In a list format?
Excel…
Jim Hughes (19:59:07) :
Funding was canceled in 2005 but some have graciously kept it updated. Even up to April 2009.
That ‘some’ is my good friend, the much vilified David Hathaway.
In the paper I mentioned Landscheidt says “.. I selected a time series that combines Northern Hemisphere land air temperature anomalies (Jones, 1994) with sea surface temperature anomalies (Parker et al., 1995)… If there were a causal connection, temperature should lag the aa index. So I computed the correlation coefficients for different lags and found that the correlation reaches a maximum when temperature lags aa by 6 years.”
This sounds reasonable. On a daily basis the maximum and minimum temperatures are reached after noon and midnight and the coldest and warmest months are after the solstices. For the Earth on a decadal basis there should be a considerable lag from solar influences due to the ocean heat sump.
Landscheidt claims “..Near-Earth variations in the solar wind, measured by the geomagnetic aa index since 1868, are closely correlated with global temperature ( r = 0.96; P < 10-7).." The graph showing smoothed yearly aa index against smoothed yearly global temperature anomalies is also very impressive.
Leif Svalgaard do you have the yearly raw aa index data? If so his claim can easily be checked. Thanks
Richard (21:26:18) :
Leif Svalgaard do you have the yearly raw aa index data? If so his claim can easily be checked. Thanks
at http://www.leif.org/research/AA-Yearly.xls
1st col. is the year, 2nd col. is the raw aa-mean, 3rd col. is my corrected aa. Basically aa+3.322 before 1957. Why? See: http://www.leif.org/research/2007JA012437.pdf page 15. The 2.9 nT correction becomes a 3.322 nT correction after the effect of the dipole tilt has been accounted for.
Leif Svalgaard (22:56:49) : C O R R E C T I O N
Richard (21:26:18) :
Leif Svalgaard do you have the yearly raw aa index data? If so his claim can easily be checked. Thanks
at http://www.leif.org/research/AA-Yearly.xls
1st col. is the year, 2nd col. is the raw aa-mean, 3rd col. is my corrected aa. Basically aa+2.531 before 1957. Why? See: http://www.leif.org/research/2007JA012437.pdf page 15. The 2.9 nT correction becomes a 2.531 nT correction after the effect of the dipole tilt has been accounted for.
Jim Hughes (19:59:07) :
That effort, unfortunately, does not include the data I seek: White-Light Faculae.
But thanks for trying.
Leif Svalgaard (20:30:12)
Any chance I might be able to see a part of it?
David Archibald (18:47:36) :
Could someone please point me to where I can get polar magnetic field strength data as per this graph: http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PFdiv.gif .
Leif Svalgaard (19:31:19) :
Vukcevic has a formula that will give you the polar field at any time thousands of years in the future or in the past, so you don’t need observations. ……..
Dr. Svalgaard
Thanks for publicly ‘endorsing’ Vukcevic polar fields formula, a cynic would add “no such thing as bad publicity”.
Thousands of years? Next 15-20 would be fine, but for the time being it is in good agreement with above findings of Drs Livingstone and Penn. For curious here it is:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarFields.gif
If you are considering longer term than it should be combined with the Cycle anomalies formula:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/Anomalies.gif
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/CycleAnomalies.gif
Leif Svalgaard (
That ’some’ is my good friend, the much vilified David Hathaway.
vilified ? ….Ouch. I appreciate his updates.
rbateman (00:56:15)
That effort, unfortunately, does not include the data I seek: White-Light Faculae.
But thanks for trying.
Sorry , I guess I should have mentioned that. It was also for others to look at for other information. As far as the cycle trends (peaks) during the last few, and what your looking at. It’s been dropping since Cycle 21. The peak values of Cycles 22 & 23 were somewhat in the same ballpark with each other but the consistency of Cycle 23 was not as strong as Cycle 22. Although the descending part held it’s own.
rbateman (00:56:16) :
Any chance I might be able to see a part of it?
Ask Angie Cookson at angie.cookson@csun.edu