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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leif: Could all of these Solar Cycles be related to a cyclic mass balance going on within the Sun? i.e. A solar tide if you will together with mass being destroyed and energy being created from this?
I found it on Wikipedia and whoever edits that says the cycle is due to the differential rotation of the sun produces twisted magnetic fields in an eleven year cycle. Could it be that there is some kind of wobble or other long term explanation for this differential rotation of the Sun? Interesting and of course we don’t have enough data to figure this out yet.
@Dale Rainwater. Leif Svalgaard… Leif, I’m trying to calculate the mean TSI for 2008, but my ciphers don’t coincide with the average that you calculated. I took the database from SORCE-TIM; however, SORCE’s database shows very low magnitudes, as 1360.5 W/m^2. Please, would you be so kind as to give me the formula for converting SORCE data to real data? I thank you in advance for your kindness.
Jack Green (07:20:45) :
Could it be that there is some kind of wobble or other long term explanation for this differential rotation of the Sun? Interesting and of course we don’t have enough data to figure this out yet.
The differential circulation is caused by several things, including the Coriolis force [the same process that creates the Trade Winds in the Earth’s atmosphere. The magnetic field also modulates the differential rotation [makes it less]. But the true relationships are only now beginning to be investigated, now, when we are beginning to explore the interior of the Sun observing the results of Sunquakes.
Nasif Nahle (09:33:50) :
Please, would you be so kind as to give me the formula for converting SORCE data to real data?
The SORCE data is the real data. It is the other data that is wrong [too high by ~4.4 W/m2], but for consistency with older data it is more convenient to ‘correct’ the SORCE data. As long as one knows that that is going one, there should be no confusion.
Leif Svalgaard (23:13:33) :
Many thanks for that data. I’ll have a look today after work.
I hope I’m not repeating this latest news from NASA’s NSO (National Solar Observatory) issued this study about our sun’s lack of spots. I wonder what Penn and Livingston make of this:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/17jun_jetstream.htm?list970792
May be Leif can chime in.
Leif Svalgaard (11:04:56) :
Nasif Nahle (09:33:50) :
Please, would you be so kind as to give me the formula for converting SORCE data to real data?
The SORCE data is the real data. It is the other data that is wrong [too high by ~4.4 W/m2], but for consistency with older data it is more convenient to ‘correct’ the SORCE data. As long as one knows that that is going one, there should be no confusion.
Clear enough… Thanks again, Leif. 🙂
Anthony have you seen this yet?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/17jun_jetstream.htm?list173737
Stephen Singer (18:40:25)
Anthony have you seen this yet?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/17jun_jetstream.htm?list970792
The mirror image like similarities between the jet stream in both hemispheres, especially at the higher latitudes, is remarkable.
Jim Hughes (19:00:44) :
The mirror image like similarities between the jet stream in both hemispheres, especially at the higher latitudes, is remarkable.
It is not. the piece is just usual NASA PR-hype. We have not solved the problem, just moved it: namely to why has the flow slowed?
The similarity is simply because this is a GLOBAL inversion that assumes [and forces] the two hemispheres to be identical.
Leif,
Maybe remarkable was the wrong adjective to use but let’s push the differences aside within your community. And I’m probably on your side here anyway.
So are you saying that it is not somewhat odd that both hemispheres almost look like mirror images even though the surface on both do not throughout the solar cycle ? And I was really talking about the one at 4,000 which you could access in the article….”more graphics”.
And if so, why ?
Jim Hughes (04:42:34) :
So are you saying that it is not somewhat odd that both hemispheres almost look like mirror images
I assume that repeating what I said:
“The similarity is simply because this is a GLOBAL inversion that assumes [and forces] the two hemispheres to be identical.”
will not improve the understanding. So, I’ll have to elaborate:
The method by which the data is obtained forces the two hemispheres to be identical. In other words, the solution is given as a function of latitude without sign, i.e. with no distinction between North and South. This means the the data really only consists for the upper half of the diagram. The mirroring is done after the data has been obtained to ‘aid’ [but apparently causes more confusion than elucidation] in understanding of the phenomenon. It is therefore not remarkable that the two halves appear identical. If they didn’t that would signal an error in the program that drew the image. The algorithm should be:
0) for B from 0 to +90:
1) obtain value at latitude +B from helioseismology
2) set value at latitude -B = value at latitude +B
3) draw the two identical values at +B and at -B
Leif,
Thank you for adding the extra minor details and if I have any more questions, or comments, I’ll post them in the other discussion.
Jim Hughes (06:53:58) :
Thank you for adding the extra minor details and if I have any more questions, or comments, I’ll post them in the other discussion.
You left open the issue of your understanding of why there should be an EXACT mirror symmetry and that it is solely an artifact of the presentatation and the analysis and NOT a property of the Sun. Do you now understand that completely?
Leif Svalgaard (09:23:35)
You left open the issue of your understanding of why there should be an EXACT mirror symmetry and that it is solely an artifact of the presentatation and the analysis and NOT a property of the Sun. Do you now understand that completely?
Yes. Thanks again.