From NASA News: Are Sunspots Disappearing?
September 3, 2009: The sun is in the pits of the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century. Weeks and sometimes whole months go by without even a single tiny sunspot. The quiet has dragged out for more than two years, prompting some observers to wonder, are sunspots disappearing?
“Personally, I’m betting that sunspots are coming back,” says researcher Matt Penn of the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson, Arizona. But, he allows, “there is some evidence that they won’t.”
Penn’s colleague Bill Livingston of the NSO has been measuring the magnetic fields of sunspots for the past 17 years, and he has found a remarkable trend. Sunspot magnetism is on the decline:
Above: Sunspot magnetic fields measured by Livingston and Penn from 1992 – Feb. 2009 using an infrared Zeeman splitting technique. [more]
“Sunspot magnetic fields are dropping by about 50 gauss per year,” says Penn. “If we extrapolate this trend into the future, sunspots could completely vanish around the year 2015.”
This disappearing act is possible because sunspots are made of magnetism. The “firmament” of a sunspot is not matter but rather a strong magnetic field that appears dark because it blocks the upflow of heat from the sun’s interior. If Earth lost its magnetic field, the solid planet would remain intact, but if a sunspot loses its magnetism, it ceases to exist.
“According to our measurements, sunspots seem to form only if the magnetic field is stronger than about 1500 gauss,” says Livingston. “If the current trend continues, we’ll hit that threshold in the near future, and solar magnetic fields would become too weak to form sunspots.””This work has caused a sensation in the field of solar physics,” comments NASA sunspot expert David Hathaway, who is not directly involved in the research. “It’s controversial stuff.”
The controversy is not about the data. “We know Livingston and Penn are excellent observers,” says Hathaway. “The trend that they have discovered appears to be real.” The part colleagues have trouble believing is the extrapolation. Hathaway notes that most of their data were taken after the maximum of Solar Cycle 23 (2000-2002) when sunspot activity naturally began to decline. “The drop in magnetic fields could be a normal aspect of the solar cycle and not a sign that sunspots are permanently vanishing.”
Penn himself wonders about these points. “Our technique is relatively new and the data stretches back in time only 17 years. We could be observing a temporary downturn that will reverse itself.”
The technique they’re using was pioneered by Livingston at the NASA-supported McMath-Pierce solar telescope near Tucson. He looks at a spectral line emitted by iron atoms in the sun’s atmosphere. Sunspot magnetic fields cause the line to split in two—an effect called “Zeeman splitting” after Dutch physicist Pieter Zeeman who discovered the phenomenon in the 19th century. The size of the split reveals the intensity of the magnetism.
Right: Zeeman splitting of spectral lines from a strongly-magnetized sunspot. [more]
Astronomers have been measuring sunspot magnetic fields in this general way for nearly a century, but Livingston added a twist. While most researchers measure the splitting of spectral lines in the visible part of the sun’s spectrum, Livingston decided to try an infra-red spectral line. Infrared lines are much more sensitive to the Zeeman effect and provide more accurate answers. Also, he dedicated himself to measuring a large number of sunspots—more than 900 between 1998 and 2005 alone. The combination of accuracy and numbers revealed the downturn.
If sunspots do go away, it wouldn’t be the first time. In the 17th century, the sun plunged into a 70-year period of spotlessness known as the Maunder Minimum that still baffles scientists. The sunspot drought began in 1645 and lasted until 1715; during that time, some of the best astronomers in history (e.g., Cassini) monitored the sun and failed to count more than a few dozen sunspots per year, compared to the usual thousands.
“Whether [the current downturn] is an omen of long-term sunspot decline, analogous to the Maunder Minimum, remains to be seen,” Livingston and Penn caution in a recent issue of EOS. “Other indications of solar activity suggest that sunspots must return in earnest within the next year.”
Whatever happens, notes Hathaway, “the sun is behaving in an interesting way and I believe we’re about to learn something new.”
h/t to Michael Ronayne
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
MikeE wrote :
“…The only logical solution, is to fire all our nuk’s at mercury in the hope of breaking it free of its orbit and launching it into the sun… which will re fire up the sun …”
I hope Obama doesn’t see this…
savethesharks (21:48:54) :
“Maunder Minimum” for the first time.[…]
Regardless…we as a species need to be prepared,
If the L&P effect was the cause of the Maunder Minimum [the spots were there, but were just invisible] then the solar magnetic field did not go away. We know from cosmic ray proxy studies that the solar modulation of cosmic rays was still present during the MM and reconstructions of the Heliospheric Magnetic Field also show that while a tad weaker, the HMF was still in place, so TSI was probably not significantly weaker either, so another MM may not mean a significant climate effect [if one subscribes to the Sun being a major driver of said climate].
Mike Abbott (18:07:21) :
“Not quite. The search engine on NASA’s home page picks up twenty hits on that term.”
If you had done a more accurate Google Advanced Search you would have found that the count was closer to 1,460 but some of the references are in the links pointing to other pages:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Maunder+Minimum%22+site%3Anasa.gov
This is the first NASA has used the term in the context of the current solar minimum. OK, that is not quite true either, in the July 20, 2009 interview in the New York Times, Dr. Hathaway discounted the possibility of a Maunder Minimum and stated that at worst we would only have a Dalton Minimum, when the NY Times reported:
“Among some global warming skeptics, there is speculation that the Sun may be on the verge of falling into an extended slumber similar to the so-called Maunder Minimum, several sunspot-scarce decades during the 17th and 18th centuries that coincided with an extended chilly period.
Most solar physicists do not think anything that odd is going on with the Sun. With the recent burst of sunspots, “I don’t see we’re going into that,” Dr. Hathaway said last week.
Still, something like the Dalton Minimum — two solar cycles in the early 1800s that peaked at about an average of 50 sunspots — lies in the realm of the possible, Dr. Hathaway said.”
How we have this statement by NASA:
“If sunspots do go away, it wouldn’t be the first time. In the 17th century, the sun plunged into a 70-year period of spotlessness known as the Maunder Minimum that still baffles scientists.”
Not bad for that lucky old Sun with nothing to do but go from a Dalton Minimum to a Maunder Minimum in just six short weeks, keep up the good work Sol. I for one intend to put my legs up and enjoy the circus, so bring in the AGW clowns. The nice thing about this is that no one knows what is going to happen and we are totally unprepared if the worse occurs because thirty years, catering to an environmentalist religious cult. I am now very grateful that the environmentalists bet the farm on Anthropogenic Global Warming, we can now expose the fools for exactly what they are. If Drs. Livingston and Penn are correct we can discredit their entire agenda.
Michael Ronayne
Nasif Nahle (21:59:13) :
We know that to produce magnetic fields, the Sun requires of strong macroscopic electric currents
No, electric currents are by-products of plasma movements and magnetic fields. There are no electric fields in the rest-frame of a plasma. The solar dynamo in the convection zone amplifies existing magnetic fields and the solar core is not involved. Although there are many unknowns about the solar cycle, there are also many knowns.
I work outside at 6 am every morning and my observation is that the temperature drops just as the sun rises due to increasing wind movement and wind chill. Am I right?
>Leif Svalgaard (22:37:01) : We know from cosmic ray proxy studies that the solar modulation of cosmic rays was still present during the MM and reconstructions of the Heliospheric Magnetic Field also show that while a tad weaker, the HMF was still in place, so TSI was probably not significantly weaker either, so another MM may not mean a significant climate effect [if one subscribes to the Sun being a major driver of said climate].
In Norway we have no historical evidence for aurora during the Maunder Minimum. For example Petter Dass (1647-1707), the foremost Norwegian poet in his time, does not mention the aurora.
Are there historical evidence that the aurora did exist during the Maunder minimum?
The Farmer’s Almanac, whose method reputedly uses sunspot activity as one of several major indicators, predicts “an ice sandwich” for the U.S. this winter. Has anyone ever compared the Almanac’s predictive record with NOAH’s or any of the other super-computer equipped organizations? I’d bet on the old geezer with the green eye-shade and a slide-rule in hand who’s behind the Almanac’s predictions.
CH
David Ermer (17:06:59) :
“If we extrapolate this trend into the future, sunspots could completely vanish around the year 2015.”
Yikes! Since when is nature linear? Somebody should make up a rule about extrapolating a fit to data without there being a clear cut physical model behind the fit.
————-
My first thought too when I saw this. I expect the feedback effect of CO2 is causing a disturbance to the magnetic field and inevitably leading to the sun going out and the extinction of all life in the solar system. Possibly within days.
Now that we have established *cough* that we are heading into (at least) a Maunder Minimum, is it too early to suggest a policy shift to burning more coal? I, for one, am thinking a portfolio shift into that most vile, CO2-belching industry might be oppotune to stave off the ravages of the spotless sun. Then again, maybe I should take up maggot farming… CH4 is the far better greenhouse agent after all. Hmmmm decisions, decisions….
Invariant (23:04:06) :
Are there historical evidence that the aurora did exist during the Maunder minimum?
Yes, http://www.leif.org/EOS/1990MNRAS247.pdf
Invariant (23:04:06) :
In Norway we have no historical evidence for aurora during the Maunder Minimum. For example Petter Dass (1647-1707), the foremost Norwegian poet in his time, does not mention the aurora.
Does he mention ‘rain’?
> Bulldust (23:46:27) :
Now that we have established *cough* that we are heading into (at least) a Maunder Minimum, is it too early to suggest a policy shift to burning more coal?
My *political* opinion is that saving the rain forest and such is a good “side effect” of the current “climate crisis”. However, based on my experience over many years with nonlinear multiphase flow simulations, I do not think we have evidence to say that CO2 is actually contributing in a significant way. Thus burning more coal may or may not save us from colder climate – we do not know. We might as well argue that less burning of coal should save us from colder climate.
Leif Svalgaard (22:37:01) :
Leif, I am confused by your statement. If the L&P effect is a change (decrease in this case) in the magnetic field strength, which is my understanding based on this: “’Sunspot magnetic fields are dropping by about 50 gauss per year,’ says Penn.”, then what do you mean by “If the L&P effect was the cause of the Maunder Minimum [the spots were there, but were just invisible] then the solar magnetic field did not go away.”?
The Penn quote indicates that the magnetic field strength is decreasing. I call that “going away”? Perhaps you mean that the magnetic field decreased below that required for a spot to form, but didn’t completely go away? Could you clarify please? Thanks in advance.
The paper, rejected in peer review, was never published by Science. Livingston said he’s OK with the rejection. “I accept what the reviewers said,” Livingston said. “‘If you are going to make such statement, you had better have strong evidence.’ “ Livingston said their projections were based on observations of a trend in decreasingly powerful sunspots but reviewers felt it was merely a statistical argument.
A statistical argument? That has not stopped reviewers in the past, has it? I thought the entire premise for AGW was a ’statistical argument’ based on trends…
I weep for science, again…
Quote from article: “According to our measurements, sunspots seem to form only if the magnetic field is stronger than about 1500 gauss,” says Livingston. “If the current trend continues, we’ll hit that threshold in the near future, and solar magnetic fields would become too weak to form sunspots.””This work has caused a sensation in the field of solar physics,” comments NASA sunspot expert David Hathaway, who is not directly involved in the research. “It’s controversial stuff.” Unquote
If I remember correctly the whole idea of Dr Svensmark’s cloud theory was that the Sun’s magnetic field held cosmic rays in check and if the Sun’s magnetic field weakened increased cosmic ray bombardment of Earth would lead to greater global cloud cover and cooling. If the weakening of the magnetic field continues it follows that cooling will occur potentially leading to a DM or MM???
Just a question from a layman as it does not appear to have been touched upon above.
Evan – “There is considerable debate as to the sun’s effect on climate over the long term.”
A little lesson in Climate 101.
What is climate?
Meteorological elements in a given region over long periods of time.
These meteorological elements are what we call weather.
What is weather?
Our atmosphere responding to unequal heating of our planet.
What is the major heat source for our planet?
The Sun.
I’ll let you come to a conclusion.
Evan – “There is considerable debate as to the sun’s effect on climate over the long term.”
What is climate?
Meteorological elements in a given region over long periods of time.
These meteorological elements are what we call weather.
What is weather?
Our atmosphere responding to unequal heating of our planet.
What is the major heat source for our planet?
The Sun.
Ubique of Perth WA (17:30:24) :
Fortunately, the sun has no effect on climate. Or weather. Not even sure if it affects the difference between day and night.
Err, prove it!
WRT Dr Hathaway, & no disrespect intended at all, but his Solar predictions have been somewhat wayward of late. In my experience all things can be extremely predictable in life, right up to the point where they do the completely unexpected, then the theory has to go back to the drawing board for re-evaluation!
As to temperatures, forgive a 50 something & his memory if I have already told this anecdote, but once when working at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Oxfordshire, in the Building/Engineering section, on a very early Spring morning a Duty Clerk of Works was carpeted for failing to order the gritting of roads & paths, especially the approach roads to the main entrance & on site due to ice/frost, several vehicles slid & skidded nearly having accidents, etc, (too much right foot) one or two people actually fell over whilst on foot (not enough left foot). He came on duty at 5:30am. He had checked with the main gate security & recorded the temperature from the Gate Lodge thermometers, it was well above freezing. When the early shift workers started arriving at 6:30am he checked the temperature again, it was still above freezing. When the main work force started turning up in droves from 8:00am onwards – in bright Spring sunshine the all hell broke loose. What happened was that the temperature had dropped significantly within an hour causing localised freezing on site & the surrounding area. This was actually not an unusual event as the land between the Ridgeway (an ancient pathway) hills & Oxford was pretty flat & relatively exposed, part of the Thames basin, & local temperature effects existed, but then that’s Britain for you! (Or anywhere else for that matter). Fortunately the meticulous record keeping & sense of duty of the CoW got him out of that situation, the Big White Chief having to eat humble pie.
AND as for extrapolation, isn’t this what we’ve been suffering from since time began? Sort of, “Well, if it carries on at this rate……………….etc, etc!”. Whilst a technically true statement, where is the evidence that such is necessarily so? Extrapolation = Risky business especially in Structural Engineering!
Leif Svalgaard (23:57:05) answers Invariant’s (23:04:06) question Are there historical evidence that the aurora did exist during the Maunder minimum? with a resounding “Yes” and cites: Aurora borealis during Maunder minimum by Ludwig Schlamminger.
The major interest to me in this exchange is the demonstration, yet again, of the store of knowledge available to the serious student v. the store of ignorance available to knee-jerk and assumption people like myself. Rather sobering.
Now I am waiting to hear if Petter Dass mentioned rain…
“Ubique of Perth WA (17:30:24) :
Fortunately, the sun has no effect on climate. Or weather. Not even sure if it affects the difference between day and night.
REPLY – It must do. Tmax is almost always during the day and Tmin is almost always at night for any given location. ~ Evan]”
Well, I thought it was funny!
It’s worse than we thought!
John Peter (00:42:08) :
As for cosmic rays, “Captain, we have a visual”
‘on screen Mr. Sulu”
http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/eit/images/latest_eit_284_full.gif
To be filed under: “The Ice Age Ate my Global Warming.” You can’t make stuff like this up!
Global Warming Could Forestall Ice Age
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/science/earth/04arctic.html
New York Times, , By ANDREW C. REVKIN, Published: September 3, 2009
“The human-driven buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere appears to have ended a slide, many millenniums in the making, toward cooler summer temperatures in the Arctic, the authors of a new study report.
Scientists familiar with the work, to be published Friday in the journal Science, said it provided fresh evidence that human activity is not only warming the globe, particularly the Arctic, but could also even fend off what had been presumed to be an inevitable descent into a new ice age over the next few dozen millenniums.”
So for this week is AGW good or bad? Inquiring minds want to know? Expect to see more spin like this in the coming months and years. Will Obama Care cover motion sickness medication? But then without Cap and Trade taxes they can’t fund Obama Care can they?
Mike
I don’t know about you guys, but I fear that the sun is “rapidly approaching a tipping point”.
:O
Actually, quite interesting stuff. And a lot more troublesome to me than the wildest assertions about “global warming”.
Whether or not the Maunder Minimum was the direct cause of the Little Ice Age becomes far more serious a question the longer this thing drags on and the L&P effect continues.
There is a world of difference between something that is predicted to happen by models and something that is actually occuring for all to see.
The Sun is hidden from nobody except the blind, the laboratory of Astronomy being a universal phenomenon.
Some have gotten the message. Some are presently digging a hole.