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.
vukcevic says:
September 19, 2010 at 1:49 am
It would be interesting to here (currently absent) Dr. Svalgaard’s view
Perhaps you should update your graph with the latest data [uploaded a few minutes ago] at http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston.txt
The flaw in your ‘analysis’ can best be seen with a little thought experiment: assume that L&P were correct, then the contrast point would progressively fall off the graph at the top and the trend line would asymptotically approach a flat line as it seems to begin to do. Your running average is not of particular interest. The strongest evidence in support of L&P [and this is why I support L&P] is the growing discrepancy between the SSN and F10.7 [which finds a natural explanation in L&P]: http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20and%20SSN.png
Solar science is cool. Don’t abuse it for more climate alarmism in either way.
All very interesting. Now which one of you is going to tell the MSM. I acknowledge that the MSM thrives on bad news. That’s why AGW/CC was so embraced by them. But a cooling earth that will possibly lead to severe food shortages with riots and other calamities must surely rate as equally alarming.
Weather is weather I know but Australia has had a cooler winter than the past few years. SE Aus has had widespread and very useful rain. The drought is over for the time being. NH has had a cold winter and, if the deer are correct, will have another this year. South America has had record cold in several locations. I do think COLD is the new WARM. La Nina has played a part but then we have had several La Ninas in the past decade none of which led to so much cooling or so much rain.
David Archibald wrote recently of possibly two weak SC. Unfortunately David is not on our PMs list of experts to advise (co-erse) the chosen 150 about climate change.
Is this possible cooling the reason for Holdren to change the name to Climate Disruption? Will he have the gall to blame cooling on excess CO2 in the atmosphere? Will Mann redraw his hockey stick to show unprecedented cooling relying on tree rings that were not available last time? Will the team spin this as much as they are spinning CC? Will the public be fooled AGAIN? Just asking.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 2:31 am
“Would the original Wolf 64x telescope record the same sunspot numbers as Locarno if the Waldmeier “weighting factor” was not applied to the Wolf 64x telescope?”
According to Waldmeier, Locarno shows the same number of spots and pores as the x64. To get from those counts to a Sunspot Number, they both have to be treated the same way, weighted and scaled by 0.6, or not if you just want the raw numbers. One must assume that Waldmeier did this. But the question doesn’t matter as Locarno was [and in isolation is] not used to derive the SSN.
Instead of “War & Peace” why don’t you just man up and answer the question properly?
The “weighting factor” (22%) is not applied to Locarno. There is an obvious difference between the two telescopes. It’s not the end of the world to be wrong.
Svalgaard says: September 19, 2010 at 2:44 am
Perhaps you should update your graph with the latest data
I shall indeed do that with. Data I used is up to 28 or August, I notice your new file has 3 more days of sampling 4,5&6 of September.
Regardless of method used or displayed, 3 days on 10 years ain’t going to make great deal of difference; do you think otherwise?
Further more the new added dates are not ideal for sampling, either for the intensity or magnetic field, since SS are tiny and far away from the disk’s centre (not to mention a main spot disappearing from the view). Here is the SS view in mid range of the extra 3 days not included: http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov//data/REPROCESSING/Completed/2010/mdiigr/20100905/20100905_1600_mdiigr_1024.jpg
L&P deserve better viewing dates!
Surprising you should comment without actually taking time to take a look at the graph, so here it is again, for you or anyone else interested:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/L&P1.htm
In my view the graph says far more than words.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 19, 2010 at 3:16 am
The “weighting factor” (22%) is not applied to Locarno.
Care to prove your claim?
vukcevic says:
September 19, 2010 at 3:24 am
Regardless of method used or displayed, 3 days on 10 years ain’t going to make great deal of difference; do you think otherwise?
We don’t need a ‘great deal’. There is some difference. Suppose we come to a point a few years down the road where the last spot disappears.
Further more the new added dates are not ideal for sampling, either for the intensity or magnetic field, since SS are tiny and far away from the disk’s centre
Livingston’s data do not depend on the distance from the center.
Surprising you should comment without actually taking time to take a look at the graph,
Surprising that you should say so without even checking. [I looked twice].
From the landscheidt site
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sept_18_5.00.png
Wolfcam 64x
Leif Svalgaard says: September 19, 2010 at 3:42 am
Surprising that you should say so without even checking. [I looked twice].
Link
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/L&P1.htm
shows no hits from Petaluma, one from Hollister, couple of individual ones from SF itself, and couple from Oakland.
If you are any of those I withdraw my comment, if not I recommend a good look at above graph’s link.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 3:42 am
Geoff Sharp says:
September 19, 2010 at 3:16 am
The “weighting factor” (22%) is not applied to Locarno.
Care to prove your claim?
A simple check of the daily Locarno drawings show they count as per Wolfer.
http://www.specola.ch/e/drawings.html
The final SIDC count is not 22% above the Locarno daily numbers, the Waldmeier factor is not included. Man up Dr. Svalgaard.
Leif Svalgaard says: September 19, 2010 at 3:42 am
Livingston’s data do not depend on the distance from the center.
Perhaps you could explain one point:
During 3 days (4,5,& 6) of September, your data file shows 41 new measurements performed. On 4th there were ~18 visible spots dropping down ~12, so the same spots were measured on each consecutive day, I also notice with the time lapse (as spots get closer to the disk’s edge) there is a rapid deterioration in contrast. Averages:
4th – 20 samples = 0.84545
5th – 12 samples = 0.89158
6th – 12 samples = 0.89733
Now lets remember these are the same spots moving towards the disk’s edge.
Conclusion is that either spots are rapidly losing contrast through 3 days (Saturday, Sunday to Monday), or this is effect of changing angle of the observation.
I would categorise this as not entirely full-proof scientific method, and would go as far as to say these are highly questionable results.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/L&P1.htm
p.s link to SS view in the above post
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov//data/REPROCESSING/Completed/2010/mdiigr/20100905/20100905_1600_mdiigr_1024.jpg
Let me get this straight – since sunspot activity has consistently correlated with total solar irradiance, and since we have apparently entered a prolonged period of solar inactivity (reminiscent of the Maunder Minumum), the Earth’s temperature should show appreciable cooling. In the most recent solar minimum (ca. 1911-1913), Niagra Falls froze over.
Has TSI in fact bottomed out? Why are global temps then so high??
(paraphrasing Gen. Douglas MacArthur)
“Sunspots don’t disappear, they just fade away”
:-]
vukcevic says:
September 19, 2010 at 5:27 am
You are seeing the same questionable results as I have been seeing Vuk. The “L&P effect” is built on very poor data and is more like a movie plot than good science. I have measured the darkness ratio of every SC24 spot (unlike L&P) and the trend is certainly on the up.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sunspot_darkness.png
The darkness ratio is a very good proxy for gauss strength.
Laurie Ayres @ur momisugly 3:02 AM
The politicians would be happy to blame man for ‘climate disruption’. The human race has a vast capacity for guilt and will happily go along with them. It’s up to the scientists to preserve sanity, and recently, they have failed us bigtime.
In the ice core record, a rise in CO2 is always followed by a drop in temperature. Sure, the drop in temperature doesn’t follow at any predictable time, but mavens of ice cores had no difficulty reversing the Arrow of Time in order to imply causation to the lagged correlation of CO2 and temperature. These ‘scientists’ will have little trouble explaining that changed ‘albedo’, and man’s role in that is the cause of ‘climate disruption’.
Our problem is the evil in man, and the guilt that is associated with the phenomenon.
=============================
vukcevic says:
September 19, 2010 at 4:42 am
shows no hits from Petaluma, one from Hollister, couple of individual ones from SF itself, and couple from Oakland.
Because I’m in Belgium right now…
Geoff Sharp says:
September 19, 2010 at 5:18 am
The final SIDC count is not 22% above the Locarno daily numbers, the Waldmeier factor is not included.
Completely irrelevant. What counts is what Waldmeier would have seen and counted. And you cannot conclude anything from a couple of days. You need a year of data to have a reasonable basis. And with SIDC being 12-15% too low, you would be quibbling about 10%. And in addition, since Waldmeier only used the x64 original telescope, what’s the point. Your antics looks like wishful thinking to me.
vukcevic says:
September 19, 2010 at 5:27 am
Now lets remember these are the same spots moving towards the disk’s edge.
Small spots live only a few days, so they tend to deteriorate rapidly.
would go as far as to say these are highly questionable results.
Indeed, your conclusions are highly questionable. What is important is that L&P keep the same method and access pattern. You may assume that one of the most experienced solar observers in the world knows what he is doing.
Owen says:
September 19, 2010 at 5:42 am
Why are global temps then so high??
Perhaps because they have little to do with solar activity. That would be the obvious conclusion.
@ur momisugly Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 1:23 am
Anthony:
for a couple of years now I have been pointing out that the Ap Interplantary magnetic index took a dive
For a couple of years now I have pointed out that the Ap Geomagnetic index did not behave in any way remarkable. The ‘step’ was caused by a ‘sporadic’ [i.e. random] large geomagnetic storm in September, whose effect was enhanced by the semiannual variation of geomagnetic activity. This has little if anything to do with the Sun.
______________________________________________
The whole of 2003 was very high, the big spike in September was caused by the heliocentric planetary configuration at the time. http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar
Leif Svalgaard says:
Tom Rowan says:
September 18, 2010 at 8:15 am
Remember too, the government’s count of sunspot activity is being inflated.
This is complete nonsense. There are hundreds of amateurs all over the world that agree with the ‘government’s’ count. If anything, the official sunspot number from SIDC is too low.
——————————————————————————
You can listen to Leif Svalgaard or you can listen to Joe Bastardi and go to the Layman’s Sunspot Count.
The sunspot count is being systematically inflated Leif. The spots counted today were not counted during the Maunder Minimum. Because the ‘government’s’ count systematically inflates the sunspot record, it counts sunspots today that were counted as spotless days during the Maunder Minimum. This defeats any comparisons to past minimum’s impossible.
The sunspot count is the longest scientific solar record we have.
What is complete nonsense is that the longest scientific solar record is being inflated by technology.
The Layman’s Sunspot Count has many examples of spotless days the ‘government’ has counted as having spots. One sunspot count of “11” was laughable even with today’s finest telescopes.
But what the hey, everybody here can go see for themselves.
Don’t take my word for it, don’t take Leif’s word for it. Check it out for yourself.
See who is full of nonsense for yourselves.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
Owen says: September 19, 2010 at 5:42 am
…….we have apparently entered a prolonged period of solar inactivity (reminiscent of the Maunder Minumum), the Earth’s temperature should show appreciable cooling.
There is a lot of misunderstanding about the Maunder minimum time. Only reliable record (actual data) for the period are the CETs.
Solar output fell drastically in 1640 and reappeared about 1710.
The CET (red line) experienced drop some 20 years later ~1660, and rapidly rose at ~1695 about 15 years prior to the sunspot cycles reappearing.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETnd.htm
Of course there is strong possibility that neither the sunspot record or the CETs are accurate for the period, but it is the best we have.
In the above graph alsohas data for ‘N. Atlantic precursor’, which in my view is far better mach to the CETs than various correlation from the SS records and its derivatives.
A natural trigger produces the CETs changes with a response which is cumulative and variable in intensity and delay, but always there. Latest data implies a down-trend at least comparable to one in the 1950-60s. I will be providing far more detail on my website soon.
Owen says:
September 19, 2010 at 5:42 am
Let me get this straight – since sunspot activity has consistently correlated with total solar irradiance, and since we have apparently entered a prolonged period of solar inactivity (reminiscent of the Maunder Minumum), the Earth’s temperature should show appreciable cooling. In the most recent solar minimum (ca. 1911-1913), Niagra Falls froze over.
Has TSI in fact bottomed out? Why are global temps then so high??
I think you’ll find it’s got something to do with the chaotic nature of climate, the fact that we don’t understand the solar mechanisms which drive climate and …. oh yeah – there are a few lags of unknown length thrown into the mix.
Apart from that, though, imminent cooling is a nailed on certainty.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 6:22 am
Geoff Sharp says:
September 19, 2010 at 5:18 am
The final SIDC count is not 22% above the Locarno daily numbers, the Waldmeier factor is not included.
————————————-
Completely irrelevant. What counts is what Waldmeier would have seen and counted. And you cannot conclude anything from a couple of days. You need a year of data to have a reasonable basis. And with SIDC being 12-15% too low, you would be quibbling about 10%. And in addition, since Waldmeier only used the x64 original telescope, what’s the point. Your antics looks like wishful thinking to me.
You have lost all credibility….
Are you saying the government got it wrong with ‘climate change disruption’, and it really should be “Sun Change Disruption”?
Maybe getting back to real science, putting real science back in it’s proper place, would be a good idea afterall.
Leif Svalgaard says: September 19, 2010 at 6:22 am
Small spots live only a few days, so they tend to deteriorate rapidly.
As my analysis shows:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/18/suns-magnetics-remain-in-a-funk-sunspots-may-be-on-their-way-out/#comment-486583
the same 12 spots were measured on 3 consecutive days near the disc’s edge, with rapid deterioration as they get closer to the edge.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov//data/REPROCESSING/Completed/2010/mdiigr/20100905/20100905_1600_mdiigr_1024.jpg
Some of these hardly qualify for the spots.
Either is the case:
Spots loosing intensity – short life time
Spots loosing intensity – obliquity of the viewing angle.
L&P effect is drop in Gauss over period of years, so it cannot apply in the above, for the following reason:
If spot starts with a good contrast, MF is there for that level of contrast, so dropping down next day IS NOT L&P, L&P is drop from year to year leading to 2015, not from a day to a day, from Saturday 4th/09 leading to Monday 6th/09.
That is not the L&P effect as portrayed in their paper:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1009/1009.0784v1.pdf
A linear extrapolation of the magnetic field trend suggested that the mean field strength would reach this threshold 1500 Gauss value in the year 2017. Furthermore, analysis of the umbral continuum brightness showed another linear trend, and extrapolation showed
the umbral brightness would be equal to the quiet Sun brightness at about the same year. Finally, the molecular line depths showed a decreasing strength with time, and again the trend suggested that molecular absorption lines would disappear from the average sunspot umbra near 2017.
No surprise that the L&P it is not widely supported by the solar fraternity.
Vuk said:
>> the same 12 spots were measured on 3 consecutive days near the disc’s edge,
>> with rapid deterioration as they get closer to the edge.
But wouldn’t a “reverse deterioation” happen for spots emerging from the eastern edge, assuming the oblique viewing has something to do this? Then the contrast of those spots would increase over a short period.
If L&P’s sampling is truly unbiased (which Leif claims it is) then these two effects should eventually cancel each other out. That might explain why the plots are so bushy. They’re full of these ‘noisy’ short-lived events. Also underscores the importance of not changing the collection methodology in mid-stream.
So, in spite of the noise, a long-term L&P effect can be discerned. And the recent divergence of 10 cm radio flux and SSN indices further bolsters the L&P theory.
Leif @ur momisugly 6:22 AM
In response to Owen’s question ‘Why are global temps then so high?’ you say ‘Perhaps because they have little to do with solar activity’.
Or perhaps we don’t know enough about how the sun impacts climate.
===============