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.
Seems like some post have been edited since this morning…
Locarno counts they way they should (it’s even on their website) and so does Catania.
Every SIDC observing station has to follow the rules:
R=k (10g+s)
A large or small spot are both counted as 1
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 22, 2010 at 8:17 am
” What will you do if I do it and find again that there is no correlation?”
Probably ask you to do it again weekly, as quite often, months are split between -ve and +ve anomalies that “get lost” in the averaging.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 22, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Probably ask you to do it again weekly, as quite often, months are split between -ve and +ve anomalies that “get lost” in the averaging.
And you have N.H. weekly temperature data that you used to establish the connection with?
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 22, 2010 at 9:33 pm
“And you have N.H. weekly temperature data that you used to establish the connection with?”
More importantly, I have a very good track record of predicting weekly deviations from normals since late 2007, potentially negating the need for any form of Weather Derivatives, and greatly reducing the need for speculation on energy and agricultural uses and outputs.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 23, 2010 at 2:43 am
More importantly, I have a very good track record of predicting weekly deviations from normals since late 2007
Do you have a reference to that? computation of skill-scores? predicting conditions where? All over the N.H.? in 100 small regions throughout the N.H.?
From Frederic Clette:
On 09/23/2010 10:23 AM, Leif Svalgaard wrote:
1) Yes, the 0.6 change is solely due yo the counting rule. Wolfer is
very clear on this.
This is probably right, also for the reason below (secondary role of the telescope, once above a ~50 mm aperture).
2) Waldmeier measured the k-factor for Locarno for each year and
always reported it to be close to 0.6, i.e. just the same as for the
old 8 cm Wolf telescope. Waldmeier and Sergio used the same weighting
system, so no wonder that they get the same result. This shows that
the telescope is not really the limiting factor, but the counting
method and the observer are.
I am happy to hear that you reach about the same conclusion as the one I reached in my earlier answer to Goeff Sharp. It makes all the debate about the use of small Wolf-like refractors rather unimportant for what concerns the long-term calibration issue.
Now, if indeed Wolf’s 8cm telescope was still used completely independently of their 15cm telescope up to the “end” of Zürich in 1980, as I pointed out in my previous answer, it raises the issue of the subtle and progressive inclusion of the Locarno values that were obtained in a way that was more different than any change that occurred over the previous 130 years. If indeed the Zürich/SIDC transition in 1980 was the actual time when simultaneously the index computation method, the pilot station and observer changed, and now also when for the first time the reference Wolf telescope was not anymore used, it is even more remarkable that the transition was seamless (to the point that the suspicious Waldmeier change in the counting method seems to have simply propagated to today). It again indicates that for the Ri index, the exact choice of instrument at Zürich does not play a key role.
Similarly, as I mentioned in my earlier message to Goeff, I also conclude that a key element is the stability of the Locarno observer, Sergio Cortesi, who I met personally two years ago to celebrate his 50 years of sunspot service. I previously pointed out that quite luckily, both Sergio and also André Koeckelenbergh, the SIDC founder, are still alive and well and can confirm a lot of (unwritten?) information and that I am precisely about to contact them with specific questions about the changes in counting rules and in the instruments that we discussed over the past few days.
In this respect, may I point out that this will require some time, both to get the answers and to study the pieces of information (crossing the facts and combining different sources including the Mitteilungen of the Zürich Observatory). Reconstructing daily practices and methodological choices made over such a long period cannot be done overnight. I am sure that you will agree with this. Another important dimension that we would like you to develop when you plot ratios and trends is the inclusion of error bars (intervals of confidence). Indeed, in our current investigations, a lot of the undulations and jumps prove to be different for each couple of data series and often prove to be not significant statistically or only partly significant (over a narrow time interval) changing the possible interpretation. So, more analysis and more data sets awaits us before your (definitely interesting!) interrogations lead to a solid conclusion. I urged you already to be a bit patient! We are a small team with tiny budget and a lot of obligations (operational production of the index, management of the observing network, development of new software, development of new CCD imaging technique, etc.!). So, we cannot solve everything in one day!
Therefore, I think that this fast-paced real-time exchange on a blog is not at all timely and appropriate. It prevents any deepening and verification of the arguments, thus leading to clashes of superficial opinions. This is quite incompatible with a scientific approach. Exposing incomplete and unfinished analyses is premature and uselessly spread confusion, especially to the non-specialists in public forums like a blog. Thus also a catastrophe in terms of public information. This is the reason why we refrain from using this channel to communicate with our users, amateur astronomers and the public at large.
Consequently, from now on, I earnestly ask you both, Leif and Goeff, to stop this thread of discussion on the blog involving our mail exchanges.
Anyway, I will stop answering any mail if the answer is grabbed by either of you to feed a debate of opinion. Cutting our exchanges would be a sad outcome as the subject is interesting and Leif brings valuable knowledge and provocative science issues on which we really want to work (and are currently working!) . Simply, you will have ample time for discussions and reflections, on blogs or any other medium, later on once the issues are clarified and confirmed (So, not only suspicions of past biases, a non-information, but the explanation of the cause of the bias once confirmed, i.e. something much more demanding but then really informative). Here, as long-term phenomena are involved, quite naturally, issues can only be solved after some time has elapsed and sufficient relevant data have accumulated or have been recovered. There is no shortcut! I trust that you will understand these constraints and that you will take some distance with the current obsession of “everything immediately”.
Secondly, Leif, as you specially requested that I produce a corrective answer for publication on that blog, I invite you and/or Goeff to publish this message in full.
This should be my last input to your personal blog discussions, explaining to the blog readers why we don’t feel like playing the role of the ball in this ping-pong game that will have no end, as the discussion is premature and confined to a superficial level.
Leif, let us go on instead in the good spirit that I appreciated when you visited us recently for an open an insightful discussion. It is really a blessing that experienced people devote time and work to such far-reaching, but quite neglected long-term solar studies, like you do. But let us keep the manner how it is done on the right track!
And my reply to him:
“Thanks for your reply. I wholly agree that the reason for SIDC drifting is not clear and must await your detailed analysis. On the other hand, analysis of Waldmeier, Wolfer, Wolf, ect is fair game and is important for the very-long-term picture of solar activity.
Thanks again, and I appreciate our discussions during my seminar.”
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 23, 2010 at 2:53 am
Ulric Lyons says:
September 23, 2010 at 2:43 am
More importantly, I have a very good track record of predicting weekly deviations from normals since late 2007
Do you have a reference to that? computation of skill-scores? predicting conditions where? All over the N.H.? in 100 small regions throughout the N.H.?
_________________________________________________
To be fair Leif, I would be much happier discussing this with someone who is impartial and without bias, and asks intelligent and pertinent questions, rather than someone who habitually and deliberately distributes pejorative aspersions with gay abandon. And just for a laugh today, I am going to do a tally of the number of times since 2007 that you have insisted that I:- MUST ABANDON MY THEORIES IMMEDIATELY !
Ulric Lyons says:
September 23, 2010 at 5:57 am
I am going to do a tally of the number of times since 2007 that you have insisted that I:- MUST ABANDON MY THEORIES IMMEDIATELY !
Not necessarily abandon, just demonstrate by analysis [rather than just claim] that they have any substance.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 23, 2010 at 6:05 am
“Not necessarily abandon, just demonstrate by analysis [rather than just claim] that they have any substance.”
Then I should be discussing the cause rather than the means. Such as demonstrating the astronomical cause of larger monthly deviations from normals through 351yrs of CET, and older written records from a variety of locations. Your previous comments on this subject are of the likes of “cyclomania” and “revving up your Orrery”, anything changed ?
Ulric Lyons says:
September 23, 2010 at 7:36 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 23, 2010 at 6:05 am
“Not necessarily abandon, just demonstrate by analysis [rather than just claim] that they have any substance.”
Then I should be discussing the cause rather than the means.
No sense in discussing cause until the effect has been demonstrated to exist.
Malaga View: Sorry it took so long to reply.
You wrote, “How about these examples of flawed predictions based upon flawed theories… they all can’t be right… and maybe none of them will be correct,” and continued,“See page two of State of the Art: Predicting Cycle 24
http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle.ppt”
So why would a flawed prediction provide a reason for inflating the data? The predictions are all over the place. If you inflate it satisfy some of the higher predictions, then you overshoot the lower ones.
You continued, “How about these examples of the solar flare scare…”
Google news provides a whopping 66 results for “solar flares” in quotes. Not much of a scare there.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 23, 2010 at 7:44 am
“No sense in discussing cause until the effect has been demonstrated to exist.”
So that is your opinion. I was hindcasting and forecasting to the same effectiveness before having a clear idea of observable means, so I do not share your view.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 23, 2010 at 8:17 am
I was hindcasting and forecasting to the same effectiveness before having a clear idea of observable means
If you have no observables to compare with how to you assess the effectiveness?
The counts of sunspots does not tell the full story.
At the beginning of a “normal” sunspot cycle, the spots begin to appear at high latitudes, >30 deg solar latitude, North and South. But now, spots seem to be appearing at random latitudes, mostly much closer to the solar equator than is usually the case. This is hard to pinpoint, because of the unusually low number of spots that have appeared since ’08.
The one thing that is becoming more and more clear as time goes on: there is something going on with the Sun’s magnetic field that has not been seen before.
N. G. Purves
Dept. of Physics & Astronomy
Univ. Hawai’i, Hilo
@ur momisugly Leif Svalgaard says:
September 23, 2010 at 9:04 am
Ulric Lyons says:
September 23, 2010 at 8:17 am
I was hindcasting and forecasting to the same effectiveness before having a clear idea of observable means
If you have no observables to compare with how to you assess the effectiveness?
________________________________________
You have a short memory. The cause observables have been discussed in terms of analogues on this thread.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/05/suns-magnetics-coming-alive-again/#comment-386726
Ulric Lyons says:
September 29, 2010 at 2:25 am
The cause observables have been discussed in terms of analogues on this thread.
I do not consider any of that valid in any way.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 29, 2010 at 6:00 am
Ulric Lyons says:
September 29, 2010 at 2:25 am
The cause observables have been discussed in terms of analogues on this thread.
I do not consider any of that valid in any way.
_________________________________________
I do not consider your opinions as valid.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 29, 2010 at 6:36 am
I do not consider your opinions as valid.
I can live with that.