We covered this story about solar magnetic field strength and sunspot contrast months ago on WUWT, and for a couple of years now I have been pointing out that the Ap Interplantary magnetic index took a dive, and has stayed at low levels. For example, this month, it remains stalled:
Late last year I ran this story:
In June 2008, WUWT published a wake up call, which had at that time, been mostly ignored by mainstream science:
Livingston and Penn paper: “Sunspots may vanish by 2015″.
But the rest of the world is now just getting around to realizing the significance of the work Livingston and Penn are doing related to sunspots. Science just ran with a significant story that is getting lots of press: Say goodbye to sunspots
Here’s a prominent excerpt:
The last solar minimum should have ended last year, but something peculiar has been happening. Although solar minimums normally last about 16 months, the current one has stretched over 26 months—the longest in a century. One reason, according to a paper submitted to the International Astronomical Union Symposium No. 273, an online colloquium, is that the magnetic field strength of sunspots appears to be waning.
…
Scientists studying sunspots for the past 2 decades have concluded that the magnetic field that triggers their formation has been steadily declining. If the current trend continues, by 2016 the sun’s face may become spotless and remain that way for decades—a phenomenon that in the 17th century coincided with a prolonged period of cooling on Earth.
Meanwhile, both the sunspot count and the 10.7 cm solar radio flux continue to lag well behind the prediction curves:
These three indicators, taken together, suggest the solar magnetic dynamo is having trouble getting restarted for solar cycle 24, which so far is not only late, but groggy.
But back to the Livingston and Penn article from Science. The most telling graph is one that Dr. Leif Svalgaard keeps updated:
Here’s the issue, which WUWT summed up when we printed excepts of Livingston and Penn in EOS. 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.
In a nutshell, once the magnetic field gets below 1500 gauss, sunspots won’t have enough contrast to be visible.
Now maybe with the Science magazine article, the powers that be at the National Solar Observatory will give them more telescope time.They’ve had a lot of trouble getting time because the “consensus” of solar science didn’t embrace their idea. That may be about to change. With something this important, one would hope.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 21, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Ulric Lyons says:
September 21, 2010 at 2:27 pm
solar wind speed and N.H. winter temp`s in ALL winters since 2002/3 were higher until the last two.
Leif;
“So of 8 times it failed twice in a row. ”
No, the first 6 were higher wind speed and higher temp`s, the last two were lower wind speed and lower temp`s, no failures.
“And is N.H. the average Northern Hemisphere?
N.H. winter is what it says, some warmer, some cooler, for the reasons already explained.
” And does this hold for the S.H. too? and why not?”
Well why would it not, does the solar wind only affect the N.H.?
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 21, 2010 at 4:04 pm
=======================================
Tom Rowan says:
September 21, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Chirp Chirp Chirp
Tom has decended to cricket level, it seems. Watch out for the birds now.
======================
I have more proof I invented “twitter” than Algore has invented “the internet.”
Step into the ring Leif, you [SNIP]
(lol…I put in the [SNIP] myself Leif. Now you are to prove your thesis that you are, in fact, an expert sunspot beancounter, with your own words….
Tell us Leif; How many times has our sun gone missing sunspots?
This s/b a simple question for experts like you. If no one else wants to know the number…..at least give the number to canaries in a coal mine.
Leif: The total number of spotless moments in Solar Cycle 24 is:
(Will “Final Jeopardy music” help, Leif?)
Chirp
Chirp
Chirp
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 21, 2010 at 4:04 pm
There actually is a very good correlation between your solar wind plot and say European winter surface station records, but not every year, as you really need to look at this at a finer scale to make proper sense of it. For example, a given winter may have a very warm December, a very cold January, followed by a February with a very cold first half, and a very mild second half. Now average this all out like you have over 3 months, and you would not know from the result, that there was a cold winter. If you want to claim faster solar wind = lower temps, that is your folly.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 21, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Can you re-do your plots, with surface station data between 30 and 60 degrees north, with separate plots for temperatures and solar wind speed in each winter months please.
Today is only day one….
So far, WUWT readers have been given solar drool for our grist.
Behold:
Tom Rowan says:
September 21, 2010 at 10:14 am
Correction:
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 21, 2010 at 8:38 am
Tom Rowan says:
September 21, 2010 at 7:48 am
Please put this in mathematical terms, so we mere bean counters can understand.
(X = 11) What is X Leif?
Bean counters also have accounting rules that must be followed. The sunspot counting rule takes into account that sunspots occurs in ‘groups’, and then the rule [established around 1850] is that the sunspot number is 10*[number of groups]+[number of spots]. So if there is but a single, tiny, teeny, minuscule spot, it obviously makes up a group [contaning just one spot], so the rule says that SSN = 10*1 + 1 = 11. For various reasons that number [which NOAA would report] is reduced by SIDC by multiplying by 0.6, so SSN(SIDC) would be [for our example], SSN(SIDC) = 0.6*11 = 7 [rounded to whole number].
========================================
Therein lies your fallacy.
NOAA is counting no spots as 10*1+1=11
0(10*1+1) = 0. It does not equal “11.”
====================================
Say we were “counting” candle watts deep in a coal mine, instead of sunpots:
For the sake of canaries, in a 24 hour period we would count the times the candle flickered out.
If the candle flickered out 11 times during that 24 hour period, would Leif tell us the candle never flickered out?
Seems to me that everytime the sun flickers out and has zero sunspots it should be at least mentioned.
But according to Leif, counting the times the sun flickers out ought never be counted in a 24 hour period.
Looking back over solar cycle 24, Leif cannot tell you how many times the sun flickered out in a 24 hour period for the entire cycle.
Seems to me we have the technology to count such spotless moments in time. According to expert sunpot counters, these times must be inflated to “11″ no matter if the sun is blank.
Seems to me that canaries would be interested in how many times a candle flickered out in a coal mine. Counting the times the sun went blank during what could be the beginning of another grand minimum might be just as important.
Alas, we must rely on “experts” telling us to ignore a blank sun, lack of sunspots altogether, and spotless days. And they do this behind a curtain of so-called “math” that counts zero as “11.”
========================================
========================================
Tom Rowan & the Crickets ask:
Leif, we have a great idea for a number “1” post! Leif can make millions if he tells the Nobel Peace Prize membership: Spotless moments in time.
Tell the Nobel Peace Prize Committee Leif: Tell them how many spotless moments in time during solar cycle 24.
It is easier to admit “checkmate” than it is to admit you have no idea how many times our sun has gone spotless over solar cycle 24.
Your own words defeat yourself Leif, logically speaking.
I would call you a [SNIP] if that would cajole you into telling us, (as an expert sunspot bean counter;) how many spotless moments during this potential grand minimum.
We are only asking the “experts” Leif. If you cannot or will not tell us how many spotless moments, then who the [SNIP] will? Sheesh!
HOW many spotless moments, minutes, hours, and days were counted Leif?
Me? Just a guy.
You? An expert sunspot “counter.”
Me? Asking one simple question: “How many spotless moments?”
You: “Chirp, chirp, chirp…..”
(Insert: “Final Jeopardy Music”…………….)
Chirp………………….
chirp………………….
chirp………………….
It is called birdshot Leif.
If you do not like it, never go hunting with Dick Cheney.
Simple question from a simple guy, Leif:
How many times has our sun gone spotless during solar cycle 24, (you are a 4o year old solar genious, are you not?)
So tell us solar expert….How many times has our sun gone blank?
How many solar eclipses in Zurich?
An anxious world of lazy accountants awaits, ( and the Nobel Peace Prize Committee,) with baited breath. What’s up with that Leif? Didja “swallow” something?
Cat got ur tongue Leif?
I’m on a sunspot number diet.
I prefer the Sunspot Area menu, it tells me what I need to know.
[Tom Rowan’s trollish behavior is becoming annoying]
[Reply: WUWT moderates with a light touch. When in doubt, free speech rules, obnoxious or not. As long as it’s not too obnoxious. ~dbs, mod.]
The definition of a spotless day is interesting. I want to know how many Wolf would have counted if he was around today. Not only by his counting method but also by what he could see. There is now no doubt that his equipment was inferior compared with what we use today and we also know he didn’t count small spots and specks.
According to Wolf’s method ( as close as we can get today) there have been 385 spotless days since the beginning of 2009. Last month we had 8 spotless days, showing that we are still getting them (71 this year).
MODERATOR! says:
September 21, 2010 at 7:14 pm
[Tom Rowan’s trollish behavior is becoming annoying]
[Reply: WUWT moderates with a light touch. When in doubt, free speech rules, obnoxious or not. As long as it’s not too obnoxious. ~dbs, mod.]
Hiya Mods!
Nice to meet you online. My name is Tom. I like football, politics, and the truth.
Being the MODERATOR and all that, mods, moderate betwixt us, will you?
MODERATOR: The number of spotless moments during solar cycle 24 is:
Leif: The number of spotless moments during solar cycle 24 is:
Tom Rowan: I love Wattsupwiththat! You never get kicked off for asking “experts” to account for themselves.
Just the facts, mamn.
I have received two emails today that reveal some of the mystery of the sunspot count and answers some long argued questions.
The first one was from Sergio Cortesi who is one of the actual counters from Locarno and has witnessed the changeover from Zurich to SIDC. He counted the very first SIDC day in 1981 (daily raw number of 245). He maybe the observer that has been at Locarno for over 50 years. He states:
The telescope originally used by Wolf did not have the same resolution as the instruments used now. The reduction factor k {R = k(10g+f)} was introduced to take care of this problem.
The reduction factor k is decided by SIDC, before by Zurich.
Sergio Cortesi
I was honored to receive a reply and in his answer is another hidden gem. I also received an email from Frédéric Clette who is an expert in this area from the SIDC that made it all clear. It seems that Wolfer when constructing his .6 K factor to align with Wolf was also including a telescope factor
From Frederic:
Scaling modern observations versus the early ones
———————————————————————————–
Now regarding the difference between the small original telescope used by Wolf and larger modern telescopes, it turns out that the transition occurred long ago at Zürich, when Wolfer took over from Wolf around 1882. By that time, the instruments had already improved and Wolfer used a 15cm telescope with a 25cm projected image that is rather equivalent in performance to present telescopes used by contributing observers. In order to account for the change (increase) in sunspot count associated BOTH to the larger instrument AND to a different counting rule (including the smallest spots without penumbra that were excluded by Wolf), Wolfer observed during 15 years in parallel with Wolf, which led to the 0.6 scaling factor that simply brings the modern Zürich observation to the scale of the original Wolf values.
So today’s observatories are modeled on Wolfer’s telescope rather than Wolf’s, although there is obviously a connection. Frédéric explained that once the 100mm aperture barrier was broken by Wolfer all spots/specks could be seen (when viewing conditions allow). So Wolfer had a good reason to count everything and it was not just based on changing the method.
Frédéric hinted that there are still small differences between today’s telescopes which are taken up in their individual K factors. I am especially keen to find out more about the Catania telescope, it is within the Wolfer standard but some of the design features are amazing.
The SIDC is currently reviewing their sunspot series and have taken on board Dr. Svalgaards comments from his recent presentation. They were also very grateful for my supplementary comments.
I will expand the “history”section on the Layman’s page so all of this can be referenced.
This Tom Rowan heckling of Leif is getting tiring.
Listen, Tom Rowan. I think, inches and feet and yards are a stupid way of counting up the earth. Particularly when the first yard was defined from the distance of the nose of a king to the end of his hand. ( or some such). Or drams and okas. There are 400 drams in the oka. (If you knew that you might come up with” why are there not 366 drams in the oka?). And lets not get into pounds and ounces and stones.
A convention has been devised by the scientists gathering the data. The number of spots and the sunspot number are two different concepts that you seem unable to understand.
Could you please stop belaboring the obvious to people who know about relative definitions in science and compromises in order to have some continuity with old measures. Was the foot in king James time the same size as the foot now?
The objective of having a sunspot number is to have a proxy for the sun’s activity that is connected with the record from the time sunspots were seen as important and recorded. That is all. It is not one upmanship on what a sunspot less day is and the meaning thereof. If people who are doing the calculations of sun activity can use the sunspot number as they have defined it, that should be fine with scientists in other disciplines. Inconsistencies within a system are important, but you are not pointing out inconsistencies, just insisting on your preferences. Please play quietly in the corner from now on.
Seems to me some very fine brain cells are being drivelled on this thread.
@ur momisugly Geoff: Did you asked them about the Waldmeier factor? Do they used it sometimes or don’t they draw the pores in their sketches?
JCarels says:
September 21, 2010 at 11:46 pm
@ur momisugly Geoff: Did you asked them about the Waldmeier factor? Do they used it sometimes or don’t they draw the pores in their sketches?
I did ask Sergio if they use the Waldmeier scaling factor in full at Locarno. He did not answer that directly but I have looked back over many of his drawings and he does look consistent with the original Waldmeier method though perhaps not doubling every pore value. Other observers show quite some variance from the Waldmeier method. Locarno is the reference station but I have noticed that sometimes their high count on certain days is heavily discounted in the final SIDC daily value.
Catania does look to record more specks than Locarno, if this is due to the better viewing or a better telescope I am still unsure. Catania do not use the Waldmeier system, and actually employ a different counting method. A large spot with 6 umbrae can receive a value of 15 raw by Locarno, compared to 16 raw by Catania. Catania keeping pace with Locarno to some degree by counting separate umbrae and perhaps extra specks.
MODERATOR! says:
September 21, 2010 at 7:14 pm
[Tom Rowan’s trollish behavior is becoming annoying]
True – but I did think we would eventually find out what his point is. He seems to be of the opinion that world governments are conspiring to inflate the sunspot count. Not the easiest thing to do, one would think, since the sun is not easy to hide and it is apparent that independent counts are taken by thousands of interested amateurs all over the world.
However, the biggest mystery to me is why Tom imagines our leaders would want to increase the sunspot count. If they wanted to persuade the people about the perils of global warming, I can just about see the logic of artificially DECREASING the count. Even then it’s a bit of stretch to believe that they think they could get away with it.
Is there a point to your posts, Tom? If so please share it with us.
[Reply: WUWT moderates with a light touch. When in doubt, free speech rules, obnoxious or not. As long as it’s not too obnoxious. ~dbs, mod.]
Perhaps there should be some sort of limit on repetition.
John Finn says:
September 22, 2010 at 3:02 am
“However, the biggest mystery to me is why Tom imagines our leaders would want to increase the sunspot count. If they wanted to persuade the people about the perils of global warming, I can just about see the logic of artificially DECREASING the count.”
True, but these are master politicians who, like options traders, want to profit no matter what the sun does. If we have a normal cycle 24 with surface cooling, the story is “See, no correlation, warming will resume shortly.” The worst scenario for them is a Grand Minimum with marked cooling.
John Finn says:
September 22, 2010 at 3:02 am
NOAA by design inflate the sunspot count by not adopting the Wolfer .6 K factor. There has been references to why an inflated count might benefit some.
I think what angers many is that modern equipment is recording results inconsistent with the old record.
Leif,
Are you still in Belgium? Hope you are often refueling yourself with some Aqua Vit there while taking on this tag-team of commenters. : )
John
Ulric Lyons says:
September 21, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Can you re-do your plots, with surface station data between 30 and 60 degrees north, with separate plots for temperatures and solar wind speed in each winter months please.
I think it is up to the one making claims to do this… What will you do if I do it and find again that there is no correlation? If you know that, then we just as well do that right away and save a step.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 21, 2010 at 9:19 pm
I have received two emails today that reveal some of the mystery of the sunspot count and answers some long argued questions.
Unfortunately they are both incorrect. It is easiest to start with Frederic’s, which is more specific.
“1882. By that time, the instruments had already improved and Wolfer used a 15cm telescope with a 25cm projected image that is rather equivalent in performance to present telescopes used by contributing observers.”
Zurich did have a 15 cm telescope with a projected image. This telescope was used for a detailed study of positions and movements of sunspots and filaments. It was NOT used for the sunspot counts. The best is to let Wolfer speak for himself. Here is his report from 1893 when Wolf died: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Wolf-LXXXIV.pdf Wolfer says “p 109: Meine eigenen Beobactungen sind wie immer am vierfuessigen Fraunhoferschen Fernrohr.. [My own observations were, as always, made with the 4-foot Fraunhofer telescope..]. In http://www.leif.org/EOS/Wolf-CXVI.pdf his successor Brunner [in 1927] is very explicit: “Die Fleckenzaehlungen wurden am alten Fraunhoferschen Fernrohr von 8 cm Qeffnung bei 64 facher Vergroesserung unter verwendung eines Merzshne Polarisationsheliokopes in der bisherigen Weise durch Zaehlung der Gruppen und der Einzelflecken in denselben ausgefuehrt” [The sunspot counts were made with the old Fraunhofer Telescope with 8 cm diameter at 64 times magnification using a Merzsh polarizing filter in the old way by counting the groups and the spots within group singly]. Waldmeier also states that the old 8 cm x64 telescope was used for the sunspot counting.
So today’s observatories are modeled on Wolfer’s telescope rather than Wolf’s
So you can see that this is not the case, which makes the rest moot.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 22, 2010 at 6:39 am
NOAA by design inflate the sunspot count by not adopting the Wolfer .6 K factor. There has been references to why an inflated count might benefit some.
This is nonsense. It would be like saying that Mexico inflates distance by measuring in kilometers instead of in miles.
I think what angers many is that modern equipment is recording results inconsistent with the old record.
There is no inconsistency with the old record.
John Whitman says:
September 22, 2010 at 6:55 am
Are you still in Belgium?
Better [on the aquavit front], I’m in Denmark now.
pochas says:
September 22, 2010 at 6:19 am
The worst scenario for them is a Grand Minimum with marked cooling.
Wrong. The worst scenario for “them” is NO Grand Minimum and marked cooling. They would have to admit couldnt expalin the cooling. At the moment that have the supposed onset of a Grand Minimum with record high tropospheric temperatures on daily basis. Perfect (for them)!
Re:
John Finn says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
September 22, 2010 at 10:57 am
“They would have to admit couldnt expalin the cooling. At the moment that have”
should read
“They would have to admit they couldn’t explain the cooling. At the moment they have”
Thanks