Leif Svalgaard writes to inform me that Livingston and Penn have published their article recently in EOS, TRANSACTIONS, AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION.
As WUWT readers may recall, we had a preview of that EOS article here.
L&P write in the EOS article:
For hundreds of years, humans have observed that the Sun has displayed activity where the number of sunspots increases and then decreases at approximately 11- year intervals. Sunspots are dark regions on the solar disk with magnetic field strengths greater than 1500 gauss (see Figure 1), and the 11- year sunspot cycle is actually a 22- year cycle in the solar magnetic field, with sunspots showing the same hemispheric magnetic polarity on alternate 11- year cycles.
The last solar maximum occurred in 2001, and the magnetically active sunspots at that time produced powerful flares causing large geomagnetic disturbances and disrupting some space- based technology. But something is unusual about the current sunspot cycle. The current solar minimum has been unusually long, and with more than 670 days without sunspots through June 2009, the number of spotless days has not been equaled since 1933 (see http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html).
The solar wind is reported to be in a uniquely low energy state since space measurements began nearly 40 years ago [Fisk and Zhao, 2009].
The full article as a PDF is available here
Leif also provides his version of their Figure 3 (showing umbral intensity -vs- total magnetic field which I’m sure he’ll want to discuss here.
http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
Leif Svalgaard (22:16:53)
Yes, it missed us, otherwise we wouldn’t have seen it in profile so well. Did you have a good look at the mpegs for Aug 11 & 12 ?
evanmjones (22:35:58) :
All the Sun has to do is continue to drag it’s feet the way it has been doing the last 2.5+ years. Yes, it is certainly well within the possible.
Without the knowledge of why it’s being a stubborn mule about it, we are not able to say how long it will continue to do so.
So, maybe some of you out there have ideas you’d like to discuss.
The remarks were:
———-
Robert Bateman (23:00:41) :
evanmjones (22:35:58) :
All the Sun has to do is continue to drag it’s feet the way it has been doing the last 2.5+ years. Yes, it is certainly well within the possible.
Without the knowledge of why it’s being a stubborn mule about it, we are not able to say how long it will continue to do so.
So, maybe some of you out there have ideas you’d like to discuss.
———-
Has there been anyone taking pictures of the Sun on an hourly basis, not unlike the NOAA sats which take pictures of the weather (visible, jet stream, temp, etc.)?
.
I’m curious as to whether there has been anyone doing such observations continually, and whether they’ve noted any peculiarities, irregularities, or other anomalies.
.
After all this time, surely someone would have noted ~something~ …
.
But I will guess that if all one is looking for is pimples on someone’s face, that one might miss the forest for the trees.
.
This may be slightly OT. I was reading that the earth’s magnetic field has decreased by 10% since measurements began in 1840. Given speculation of the interactions of cosmic rays with the magnetosphere, are there any studies focused on how, if at all, the decrease in the earth’s magnetic flux may affect climate?
The comment was:
———-
Hank Hancock (00:22:48) :
This may be slightly OT.
———-
Probably no more than any other post … 🙂
.
Otherwise, I would remark just this: If you are given a basket full of possibilities, and someone asks that you toss out those which you ~feel~ aren’t considered worthwhile, do you:
.
[A] Resort to personal bias and dump the least thought of, based upon ‘feelings’?
.
OR
.
[B] Keep the whole and tell the charlatan to get lost?
Hank Hancock (00:22:48) :
………….are there any studies focused on how, if at all, the decrease in the earth’s magnetic flux may affect climate?
Here is a half-baked hypothesis:
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/40/88/86/PDF/NATA.pdf
From the pdf A Century of Solar Ca II Measurements and Their
Implication for Solar UV Driving of Climate
Peter Foukal · Luca Bertello ·William C. Livingston ·
Alexei A. Pevtsov · Jagdev Singh · Andrey G. Tlatov ·
Roger K. Ulrich
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m95w93084l347746/fulltext.pdf
the Kodaikanal and NSO time series should provide a better
approximation to the bright component contribution to (a) UV variability at wavelengths that
originate in the upper photosphere (including the important range between about 170 and
240 nm mainly responsible for ozone concentration) and to (b) the total solar irradiance.
For the two Kodaikanal- and SP-based
indices the agreement with sunspot number is less satisfactory. Again, as before, cycles 18
and 19 are weaker, and cycle 21 is stronger, than in the sunspot number.
So, the UV was stronger in the eighties than the fifites/sixties, and TSI should reflect this too, if the series which relate to chromospheric processes are used in preference to those which show stronger photospheric effects.
This makes sense to me, but as always, I’d like Leif’s comment. Particularly in view of the fact his TSI reconstruction shows cycles 18/19 as stronger in terms of TSI than cycle 21. The outcome is quite important for the interpretation of C20th trends in solar activity.
tallbloke (05:03:49) :
From the pdf A Century of Solar Ca II Measurements and Their
Implication for Solar UV Driving of Climate
Peter Foukal · Luca Bertello …
See page 9 of http://www.leif.org/research/SPD-2009.pdf by myself and Luca Bertello. “We suggest that the reason for this is not that the UV level has changed, but that the sunspot
number calibration underwent a discontinuity when Waldmeier took over the production of the Zurich sunspot number.”
Leif Svalgaard (06:49:16) :
See also page 8 of http://www.leif.org/research/SPD-2009.pdf by myself and Luca Bertello.
There is another problem with the SIDC sunspot number [it is probably a bit too low] from 1980 on. The main point of my comment [and many others I have made] is that the calibration of the sunspot number is on shaky ground.
Leif Svalgaard (06:57:24) : Your comment is awaiting moderation
Leif Svalgaard (06:49:16) :
See also page 8 of http://www.leif.org/research/SPD-2009.pdf by myself and Luca Bertello.
There is another problem with the SIDC sunspot number [it is probably a bit too high] from 1980 on. And other evidence points to the SIDC numbers being too low from about 2002 on.
Again: the sunspot number calibration is shaky. Not just the past few decades but all the way back.
wow…I think the doctor has lost the plot.
tallbloke (05:03:49) :
Particularly in view of the fact his TSI reconstruction shows cycles 18/19 as stronger in terms of TSI than cycle 21.
Luca Bertello and I show [page 8 of http://www.leif.org/research/SPD-2009.pdf ] that the Mount Wilson CaII index for cycle 21 is smaller than that for 18/19.
Dr Svalgaard, thank you for your comment. But I must say I am not completely convinced. Of course we all know that the influence the planets have on the Sun is infinitesimal. But it is not zero, and is enough to force the Sun into a complex (but small) orbit around the barycenter. As previously mentioned in this thread a correlation has been found between climate and the speed of the Sun in this orbit. But I am more interested in proof (or disproof) of how the sunspot cycle is governed by the planets.
Diligently searching for more information I have come across two recent papers on the subject. One by Hung (2007): http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Apparent%20Relations%20between%20Solar%20Activity%20and%20Solar%20Tides%20Ching-Cheh%20Hung.pdf and one by Wilson (2008): http://plasmaresources.com/ozwx/wilson/Syzygy.pdf . Wilson refers to the paper by Hung, and both are trying to find a correlation between the sunspot cycles and the conjunctions of Earth, Venus and Jupiter.
I must say I am fascinated by the impressive results presented in both papers. And Hung has a few ideas about how such small tidal forces can affect the Sun (page 19) that sound reasonable to me. Also he writes something interesting at the end : “Looking into the future, it is nearing the solar minimum now (summer 2007), but the planet alignment will not reach minimum until 2012 (fig. 4). The apparent mismatch between these two minima would indicate these two cycles are out of step, and therefore a low sunspot number would be forecasted in the coming solar cycle 24, unless the current solar minimum would last for a few more years to reduce this mismatch.”
Wilson gives credit to Hung for his work and his findings support Hung’s conclusions, but he ends up with a prognosis of an “Oort-like minimum in solar activity which will last from 2005-2045”.
So evidently the basic idea of the planets influencing and perhaps controlling the sunspot cycle is not dead, despite being rejected by most serious solar scientists, but alive and kicking more than ever.
Some information here about the link between SSN and changes in UV output:-
http://www.lowell.edu/users/jch/sss/blog/?p=557
Link from above to information about sun and earth’s climate:-
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2007-2/
Perhaps ozone chemistry is part of the answer to how solar activity can influence our climate?
I would also like to thank Carsten Arnholm, Geoff Sharp and vukcevic for their comments. Carsten, vukevic, the material presented in your links was interesting to read but not entirely convincing. Geoff, naturally I have read all your material at http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com as well as other papers written by Dr Landscheidt.
Svempa (07:36:28) :
for your comment. But I must say I am not completely convinced. Of course we all know that the influence the planets have on the Sun is infinitesimal. But it is not zero, and is enough to force the Sun into a complex (but small) orbit around the barycenter.
As the Sun is in free fall [as are the planets] it does not feel any forces upon it by followed that path. But the main difficulty with the planetary theory is the lack of a credible mechanism. The current crop of supporters have different ideas. Some say it is angular momentum transfer, some say it is tides, some say it is magnetic fields from Jupiter, or electromagnetic effects [“Jupiter shining on the Sun”], and yet others. None of these ideas can account for the polarity reversals between solar cycles. This failure is also the main reason the planetary theory was abandoned in the early 20th Century [it was held credible in the 19th]. Charbonneau has a good historical overview: http://www.leif.org/research/Rise-and-Fall.pdf
Leif Svalgaard (07:58:40) :
You can do better…the freefall argument is getting tired. The data is building solidly against you and the approaching grand minimum will leave the babcock believers stunned.
No one has a credible hypothesis for the pole reversal or 11 year cycle, although there is some clues, the decision is still to come.
Of course on our side of the fence the current trend of solar activity is completely expected and explained.
tallbloke (05:03:49) :
From the conclusion of the paper you cited:
“The relatively low correlation between the dominant features seen in reconstructions of global temperature and UV irradiance seems to argue against strong solar UV driving of the global warming reported to have occurred since the 17th century.”
Also note that they clearly show [Figure 1 c and e] that cycle 18 was stronger than 21 as in my TSI reconstruction. So this paper is very much in line with my research, as it should be because Luca Bertello and I [in our joint paper] were working on the same data as referred to in the Foukal paper.
Geoff Sharp (08:25:12) :
Of course on our side of the fence the current trend of solar activity is completely expected and explained.
It is comforting that the know-it-alls have everything figured out and under control.
Leif Svalgaard (07:33:00) :
tallbloke (05:03:49) :
Particularly in view of the fact his TSI reconstruction shows cycles 18/19 as stronger in terms of TSI than cycle 21.
Luca Bertello and I show [page 8 of http://www.leif.org/research/SPD-2009.pdf ] that the Mount Wilson CaII index for cycle 21 is smaller than that for 18/19.
Thanks Leif, I’ll take a look at that later, but I’m not sure it addresses my issue:
“So, the UV was stronger in the eighties than the fifites/sixties, and TSI should reflect this too, if the series which relate to chromospheric processes are used in preference to those which show stronger photospheric effects.”
Mount Wilson being one of the latter, Kodaikanal Observatory being one of the former, if I understand correctly. Fortunately, the plates are being/have been digitised.
Right, off to work.
tallbloke (08:39:14) :
but I’m not sure it addresses my issue:
“So, the UV was stronger in the eighties than the fifites/sixties, and TSI should reflect this too, if the series which relate to chromospheric processes are used in preference to those which show stronger photospheric effects.”
You are much too vague, here it is ‘fifties/sixties’ in another place it was cycle 18/19 [which would be forties/fifties].
The facts are that the CaII index and my reconstruction show that cycle 18 was higher than cycle 21. These calibrations are difficult [as they stress in the paper] and one index [UV CaII] is not enough to base much on. My research of the sunspot calibration compares SSN, SSA, CaII, foF2, and geomagnetic variation and they all agree that the SSN is the odd man out and should be corrected. The collective weight of several indices is what makes it credible. One could come up with an ad-hoc explanation for each index individually, but collectively they speak with one voice.
Re: Geoff Sharp
Do a fourier analysis on HadCrut – I think you’ll find the biggest cycle is around 11 years. I wonder what it is, then?
Bovine flatulence, perhaps?
VillagePlank (09:35:07) :
Do a fourier analysis on HadCrut – I think you’ll find the biggest cycle is around 11 years. I wonder what it is, then?
Bovine flatulence, perhaps?
No, there is no such peak, perhaps two-legged creature flatulence?
http://www.leif.org/research/HADCRU-FFT.png
vukcevic (01:38:48) :
Thanks for your reply and link. The figures on page 15 and 17 were rather remarkable. Have you given any consideration to how the 10% decrease in magnetic flux might also affect the correlation you’re making? What is your degree of confidence that the correlation is direct as opposed to coincidental?
My original curiosity came from this article wherein the comment is made: “The weakening — if coupled with a subsequently large influx of radiation in the form of protons streaming from the sun — can also affect the chemistry of the atmosphere, said Charles Jackman of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.”
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnetic_031212.html
In my non-climatologist mind, I’m thinking that if a large influx of solar radiation can affect the atmosphere then the decreased solar radiation of the current solar minumum might play in the opposite (if I am to understand the term “large influx” to apply to solar cycles). While the article mentions ozone holes it makes no attempt to discuss how climate might be affected. Henrik Svensmark’s work came to mind but I admit it may be nothing more than a loose tie-in.
Just because the planetary motion *might* be related to sunspots does not mean sunspots have any influence on Earth’s climate. It could be true that the planetary motion affects Earth directly and as a side effect we end up with a sunspot correlation.