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.
John Day says: September 19, 2010 at 8:13 am
Yes, I do agree with your point, if the obliquity is a factor. Perhaps I was not entirely clear (as usual), my point was that 3 extra days in September ‘ain’t going to make great deal of difference;’ as I said in my earlier post.
You are also correct about the ‘long-term L&P effect can be discerned’
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/L&P1.htm
and I would think that the average (bottom graph) whith the SS record is the more appropriate one, than the strait line with few orange markers (top graph).
Dark dotted blue line denotes periods where measurements were sparse, while pale blue line looks like real trend, and at first sight appear to be inverse of the sunspot number.
As mater of fact, if L&P proves to be real, than it would indirectly support my other hypothesis as shown here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
i.e. that the sun magnetic field is loosing its intensity and for a decade or more cantered on 2022 polar magnetic field will be only fraction of its normal values (during a normal cycle).
My argument with L&P is that far more detailed approach is needed, the trend line just is not good enough!
For those who believe that the Maunder and solar output are tied to the LIA and climate (Svallgard does not believe this), the lag between the low and earth’s temps should be about ten years:
http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf
Here is Leif Svaalgard’s view (no tie between LIA and Maunder):
http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
Well the Indonesia volcano alert levels haven’t been raised here yet.
http://portal.vsi.esdm.go.id/joomla/
Being that it is the weekend that’s not a surprise. Maybe some news will come forth early next week.
There have been a few recent plumes close to stratosphere level, one did make it… Kliuchevskoi in Central Kamchatka (Russia) On 13 September shot an ash plume to an altitude of 9.8 km (32,000 ft)
http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports/usgs/
I asked Sally Kuhn Sennert why the March 15, 2009 eruption of Redoubt had been adjusted downward from a VEI-4 to a VEI-3. She was not aware that it had been done.
Here’s an interesting article about water and earthquakes…
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/12/23_Parkfieldtremors.shtml
http://i53.tinypic.com/21o7j1x.png
But the land was really dry prior to the 5 VEI-4 eruptions of 2008 & 2009.
Expanding and contracting crust or the molten metal we ride on? No way to prove it, but something sure seems to be going on. Eruptions increase during solar cycle ramp down, then it gets quiet as the cycle bottoms out. Eruptions start happening again as the next solar cycle ramps up. Its plain as day right here.
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/find_eruptions.cfm
Those increases in volcanic aerosols perturb climate. Stratosphere blasts cool things down and low altitude blasts warm if the sun is shining through a clear stratosphere.
Brad says: September 19, 2010 at 9:18 am
…………..
I happen to agree with Dr. S. there (mind you, he never agrees with me, for which I am thankful, since it has made me look into many alternatives).
The lag is OK, but how to explain that the CET from 1690-1725 achieved sharpest ever rise in the recorded temperatures history, including the latest rise.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETlmt.htm
How to explain that in the depth of the Maunder minimum 1695-1705 (10 years) the CET rose by the similar amount as it did from 1970-2000 (30 years), period that AGW’s clowns are quoting as ‘unprecedented’.
Anyone pretending to know reasons for the Sun-Earth-CO2-etc-temperature link, has to have an answer for the above, if to be on the right track.
It is that, thanks to Dr. S’s challenges, I think I may have stumbled onto a possible answer.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETnd.htm
@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??
_______________________________________________________
So high when? last winter or this summer??
Short term anomalies follow the solar wind speed, TSI has little to do with it.
When did the Niagra Falls really freeze ? not 1911, it was too warm.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_niagara_falls_frozen2.htm
http://www.hoax-slayer.com/frozen-niagara-photos.shtml
Tom Rowan says:
September 19, 2010 at 6:34 am
The sunspot count is being systematically inflated Leif.
Can you give one good reason why the government, the IPCC or any other AGW supporting organisation would want to inflate the sunspot count. Surely they’d want to do the exact opposite.
Hi Anthony,
You said: “Interplantary magnetic index took a dive, and has stayed at low levels.”
Not this time, Anthony. Compared with the value from last year, the Ap index ramps up and reaches its value from late of 2005 again. The sun is waking up.
I wonder who the greens will blame for this lack of spots. Stupidity knows no border lines. As history shows, to stop it, it has always involved a lot of suffering.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 2:31 am
Wolf was right (you said so yourself, and you are correct) in not counting the little spots. Through time, it has turned into a free-for-all modification to suit personal preferences/proxy correlation, etc. The Flux measurements and the Sunspot Area are examples of measurements that matter, not how many spots, specks and pores there are. It is a question of value. Purchasing power is determined by the sum of units of measure, not how many pieces your purse happens to be formed from.
The Sunspot Count is trashed. One might as well return to Sunspot Group counting, for that would have more relevance than what goes on these days.
Sunspot Count realignment to agree with differing magnetic drifts are signs of forcing varying relationships into ridgid ones, not allowing the dynamics to demonstrate themselves.
Today’s dissasociation of SSN from Flux and Area (and even Flux from Area) are important milestones. They should be taken as seriously today as they should have been a long time ago.
As for Livingston & Penn, the good news is that they are using the same optical prescription and recording equipment consistently. Which brings me to a critical point: optical prescriptions. Take note of diopters, surfaces, glass types, coatings, filter substrates, etc. Such things set upper bounds.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 19, 2010 at 6:25 am
The whole of 2003 was very high, the big spike in September was caused by the heliocentric planetary configuration at the time.
Pure coincidence, there will always be SOME planetary configuration matching any events whatsoever.
Tom Rowan says:
September 19, 2010 at 6:34 am
See who is full of nonsense for yourselves.
I think that is obvious.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 19, 2010 at 6:52 am
You have lost all credibility….
This ad-hom seems to be the best you can do. Reflects on you I think. Anyway, I have explained and described the history of the sunspot numbers as far as it is known at this time.
vukcevic says:
September 19, 2010 at 7:24 am
No surprise that the L&P it is not widely supported by the solar fraternity.
About as much as your ideas, perhaps 🙂
Anyway, proper analysis requires that all is plotted, without arguing whether the last few days makes any difference. BTW, there is a beginning tentative realization that there might be something to the L&P. Scientists are by nature extremely conservative and do not on the first new bandwagon that comes along. You’ll see. As well as it is premature to accept L&P it is also premature to discount it. I myself did not place much credence in it until I [and others] found that L&P is a natural explanation of the growing discrepancy between the SSN and F10.7.
John Day says:
September 19, 2010 at 8:13 am
Also underscores the importance of not changing the collection methodology in mid-stream.
This is an important point.
kim says:
September 19, 2010 at 8:46 am
Or perhaps we don’t know enough about how the sun impacts climate.
Of what we don’t know, we should be quiet.
John Finn says:
September 19, 2010 at 10:44 am
Can you give one good reason why the government, the IPCC or any other AGW supporting organisation would want to inflate the sunspot count. Surely they’d want to do the exact opposite.
The sunspot number is observed by hundreds of amateurs all over the world and show no ‘inflation’, so get off that silly government inflation theory and stop polluting this blog with such nonsense.
I guess the sunblock is working.
Science magazines say they are worthless and don’t do anything for the Sun’s complexion on the boardwalk.
I am so thankful for Man-made global warming climate disruption cows (MMGWCDCs). If the Aussie Greenies only knew what they were missing.
This is a funk:
Prepared jointly by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA,
Space Weather Prediction Center and the U.S. Air Force.
Updated 2010 Sep 18 2201 UTC
Joint USAF/NOAA Report of Solar and Geophysical Activity
SDF Number 261 Issued at 2200Z on 18 Sep 2010
IA. Analysis of Solar Active Regions and Activity from 17/2100Z
to 18/2100Z: Solar activity was very low. Both Region 1106 (S20W21)
and Region 1108 (S28E49) indicated slight growth in areal coverage
during the period, but still retained bi-polar magnetic
configurations.
IB. Solar Activity Forecast: Solar activity is expected to be at
predominately very low levels. A chance of C-class activity, with a
slight chance of M-class activity, is possible for the next three
days (19 – 21 September).
IIA. Geophysical Activity Summary 17/2100Z to 18/2100Z:
The geomagnetic field was mostly quiet. An isolated unsettled period
was observed at high latitudes at 18/0300Z.
IIB. Geophysical Activity Forecast: The geomagnetic field is
expected to be mostly quiet for days one and two (19 – 20
September). Quiet to unsettled levels, with isolated active periods,
are expected on day three (21 September) due to a large, recurrent
coronal hole high speed stream.
kim says:
September 19, 2010 at 8:46 am
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.
Or perhaps Mann et al have been hiding the decline in global temps!
rbateman says:
September 19, 2010 at 11:45 am
Wolf was right (you said so yourself, and you are correct) in not counting the little spots.
That is not what I said or meant. The little spots must be counted. Where Wolf was right was is using the magnetic needle as the ultimate, objective standard.
the Sunspot Area are examples of measurements that matter, not how many spots, specks and pores there are.
The sunspot areas correlate with the Wolfer sunspot count, i.e. including pores and specks.
As for Livingston & Penn, the good news is that they are using the same optical prescription and recording equipment consistently. Which brings me to a critical point: optical prescriptions. Take note of diopters, surfaces, glass types, coatings, filter substrates, etc. Such things set upper bounds.
As long as L&P use the same optics, this doesn’t matter. Furthermore, their measurements are not constrained by optics but solely by seeing.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 12:04 pm
The sunspot number is observed by hundreds of amateurs all over the world and show no ‘inflation’, so get off that silly government inflation theory and stop polluting this blog with such nonsense.
I’m actually agreeing with you. I don’t believe here is any inflation of the sunspot count. I’ m also questioning what the motive would be for inflating the sunspot numbers. There is no logical reason for it.
John Finn says:
September 19, 2010 at 1:36 pm
I’m actually agreeing with you.
I know, and I’m sorry I by accident deleted the reference you were quoting. So, my comment was not meant for you but for Tom Rowan
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 1:02 pm
That is not what I said or meant. The little spots must be counted.
Even if you didn’t, you should have. The little spots are subject to way too much variance, seeing and equipment differences.
The sunspot areas correlate with the Wolfer sunspot count, i.e. including pores and specks.
And Wolfer was not Wolf or Waldemeir. Adjustments abound, details are eroded.
As long as L&P use the same optics, this doesn’t matter. Furthermore, their measurements are not constrained by optics but solely by seeing.
Yes. But this was not always so, and is the source of much uncertainty which gives rise to yet more adjustments.
Details long lost in observation documents no longer in existence.
Very important detail overlooked: Wolf’s work cannot be duplicated.
The SSN is getting tossed about by every puff of technological wind and has lost it’s luster.
This isn’t worth your time & effort, Leif. As others have noted here, we look to you & respect you for your rich experience & knowledge of the Sun’s known physics.
So has anyone discovered the reason why the snow and ice in the Dalton and Maunder type winters could survive the sunshine without melting . I have been very impressed with the suns ability to heat the north pole web cam and keep it well above freezing for months despite being surrounded by millions of miles of ice and snow . Would this heating just not happen in the very cold periods – and why not ?
Vukevic-
Are you sure the rise was only tied to the sun? Lots of volcanoes in the northern hemisphere erupted in the mid to late 1600’s, meaning that the rise may have been caused by aeroasols leaving the atmosphere.
Owen says: September 19, 2010 at 5:42 am
“Why are global temps then so high??”
As expected, not one susbstantive response to Owen’s question. Meanwhile nighttime temps are climbing faster than day, winter faster than summar, polar faster than equatorial – all markers of increasing CO2 concentration. Add “it is the sun what did it” to the “recovery in Arctic summer ice” meme.
rbateman says:
September 19, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Even if you didn’t, you should have. The little spots are subject to way too much variance, seeing and equipment differences.
That is taken care of by having many observers, so is not a problem. There is no consistent way of counting only large spots because the determination of which spots to omit is subject the the same factors.
“The sunspot areas correlate with the Wolfer sunspot count, i.e. including pores and specks.” And Wolfer was not Wolf or Waldemeir. Adjustments abound, details are eroded.
Again, it is hard not to be misunderstood. Ever since Wolfer the correlation holds [with the exception of Waldmeier’s jump]. Adjustments do NOT abound. The only adjustments ever made were by Wolf in 1861 and 1874.
“As long as L&P use the same optics, this doesn’t matter. Furthermore, their measurements are not constrained by optics but solely by seeing.”
Yes. But this was not always so, and is the source of much uncertainty which gives rise to yet more adjustments.
I believe it is so and therefore no source of uncertainty. L&P themselves state:
“All data were acquired by Livingston with the National Solar Observatory 1.5 m McMath-Pierce (McM/P) telescope on Kitt Peak and its 13.5 m spectrometer.”
Very important detail overlooked: Wolf’s work cannot be duplicated.
Nobody cares about duplicating Wolf’s work. We have a good record since ~1880 and can use the magnetic needle to make Wolf’s estimates [and earlier references] a reasonable proxy for solar activity. Combined with our growing understanding of the cosmic ray modulation.
The SSN is getting tossed about by every puff of technological wind and has lost it’s luster.
The SSN is not affected by changing technology, only by changing observer’s and that we have under control.
This isn’t worth your time & effort, Leif.
It is worth my time to respond to you. And to set the record straight. The best possible reconstruction of past solar activity is well worth the effort. The SSN is part of that, but must be combined with historical accuracy and agenda-less research as well as understanding of the possible physics involved.
As others have noted here, we look to you & respect you for your rich experience & knowledge of the Sun’s known physics.
Others seem to vilify me with abandon. Happens in every solar-related article [usually the suspects]. But we all know them and should be able to ignore their ramblings, although I habitually try [in vain] to educate them and lead them onto the right path [including the uncertainties and gaps in of understanding].
Leif Svalgaard says: September 19, 2010 at 12:04 pm
You totally missed the point.
– L&P effect is about the maximum extent of contrast attained by a sunspot during its lifetime, not about sunspot magnetic field gain or loss during 24 or 48 hours; it is a long term (measured in years) phenomenon.
– If this effect is so important a bit more ‘probing’ is required than just drawing a strait trend line, and that is exactly what I am doing.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/L&P1.htm
You may or may not like its appearance, but it is what data calculates to.
FredFriendly says: September 19, 2010 at 1:55 pm
…………..
I was making the opposite point; ‘global warming is not tied to the sun’. As far as volcanoes are concerned, I am under impression that the eruptions cause global cooling, Dalton minimum being quoted as a prime example.
See mid graph in:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-D.htm
vukcevic says:
September 19, 2010 at 2:27 pm
– If this effect is so important a bit more ‘probing’ is required than just drawing a strait trend line, and that is exactly what I am doing.
The running mean is not valid ‘probing’ [data not independent], and my trend line is not straight, but curved as the data dictates. Have you noted that there are many more data points above your running mean than below at the right-hand side of the graph? When you have such a large variation, it is often better to plot the ‘median’ value [the one that has as many points above as below it]. Anyway, your running mean fails during the recent minimum [as you acknowledge by the dashed lines I presume]. The main reason I believe in L&P is that it provides an explanation for the F10.7 discrepancy. I could predict an L&P effect from that discrepancy [too few visible spots for same amount of F10.7], so L&P is just a confirmation of that.
John Finn says:
September 19, 2010 at 6:49 am
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.
John, Good thing you’re not a climate scientist spouting babble like that – you’d be roasted by your peers here at WUWT.