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.
We know only so little about the influence of the sun on our climate. Yet they might be in close relation to the changes to our climate; to an extent that might very well be huge. Instead of making rushed decisions “to save the planet” they should spend more time researching and less time writing doomsday-scenarios.
Feyt says:
September 19, 2010 at 3:32 pm
We know only so little about the influence of the sun on our climate.
Indeed, we don’t even know if it has any influence at all.
@Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 12:04 pm
“Pure coincidence, there will always be SOME planetary configuration matching any events whatsoever.”
Absolute rubbish. The big Ap spike in late 2003 is on an inner planet config` that only occurs once every 6.4 years, and is in a very positive relationship to the 1st three outer planets. Not that would mean anything to you, as you have no idea what any given configuration does, so why even bother making out you know what you are talking about.
@ur momisugly Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 3:35 pm
We know only so little about the influence of the sun on our climate.
Indeed, we don’t even know if it has any influence at all.
__________________________________________________
You mean you don`t want to know. For anyone else with an interest in forwarding the science, just watch land surface anomalies respond in the short term, to the solar wind velocity.
RE to: William says:
September 18, 2010 at 10:46 am
Thanks for all the information. I should have known the answer wouldn’t be a simple “yes” or “no.” The more you wonder, the more you find to wonder about.
The fact solar wind bursts remove the ions, and make it look like cosmic rays do not increase cloud cover, must really screw things up. (I love that word, “electroscavanging.”) It also explains some rather sneering and belittling responces I’ve heard to the very idea that cosmic rays can increase cloud cover at all. They began with the same “either/or ” assumption I began with, but never got beyond it.
RE to : Don B says:
September 18, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Thanks for that link. I can see what my homework is going to be after work this week. Looks like loads of interesting stuff, as I briefly skim the site. The reserch equipment sure looks expencive, though. I wonder if any grant money is left over for the reserchers. I doubt they are attending meetings in Bali.
[I haven’t waded into a Leif flame war in a while. Change your tone or go elsewhere. I don’t care who started it. I don’t care about the points you may have made in that comment. Change your disrespectful tone or leave. ~ ctm]
Okay….
let us recap shall we?
===================================
Tom Rowan says:
September 18, 2010 at 8:15 am
Remember too, the government’s count of sunspot activity is being inflated.
Days without sunspots are counted as having them.
Kinda like 600 degree days & nights in Egg Harbor, Wisconcin.
“They’ve had a lot of trouble getting time becuase the “consensus” of solar science didn’t embrace their idea.”
Why should they embrace the idea of solar activity driving climate change?
The “consensus” of solar science have been cooking the sunspot books right along with the tempurature record.
====================================
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 1:23 am
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.
==========================================
Tom Rowan says:
September 19, 2010 at 6:34 am
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
===============================
Leif Svalgaard says:
Tom Rowan says:
September 19, 2010 at 6:34 am
See who is full of nonsense for yourselves.
Leif Svalgaard says: I think that is obvious.
==============================
Tom Rowan’s opinion remains:
Don’t take Leif’s word for it. Do not take my word for it. Don’t take Joe Bastardi’s word for it.
But then again, all I am asking WUWT readers to do is look for yourselves.
I think it is obvious who is full of nonsense, Leif. Since you brought it up, why not let others decide?
So many people ask why haven’t the temps fallen with the current minimum. When ever I hear this, I always go back to that “Hot Water Bottle theory”.
It would be rediculous to believe that the earths temps would react to solar fluctuations in real time. I do a fair bit of cooking, and I’ve never seen a pot of water just instantly cool when I turn the heat off. AND … more relevant, it can continue to boil even when I turn the flame down.
IMO, turning the flame down to a simmer is more synonymous with our earths climate and the sun ….. the sun doesn’t go out, it just turns down a bit. This raises the question I’ve always had …. .is there a threshold of solar activity, above which the temp rises or stays high, and below which, the temp drops? Even though solar activity has decreased, has it decreased to levels seen in the Maunder?? .. I don’t think so. Cycle 23, while lower than cycle 19, was still way hotter than the early cycles of the Dalton.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 19, 2010 at 5:18 am
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
I was wrong. Locarno does use a modified version of the Waldmeier weighting scheme to arrive at their daily sunspot number. The plot thickens.
On my Blog on the 16th of Sept I received an answer to a question posed to Dr. Svalgaard who had just returned from a SIDC presentation.
“Can you give an example of how this rating system of Waldmeier’s was applied to the standard count, and how and when it was used within the SIDC for continuance.”
His answer:
“It is in my talk on slide 3. Perhaps I was assuming too much and should have provided a translation: “a speck is counted once, A larger one but still without penumbra {a pore} is given the statistical weight 2 [i.e. counted twice], a small ordinary spot 3, and a large one 5 [i.e. counted 5 times]”.
This method is used by Waldmeier and by Keller, but not by SIDC [as far as they knew (!) as they get SSN from some 50 observers some of which may have used the weighting. After ~2000 they think none of the observers used Waldmeier’s double, triple, etc counting any more. This is all being checked at the moment. They know that they are undercounting.”
On proper inspection of the Locarno record it appears they are using a version of the the Waldmeier weighting factor. I had missed it because they are only applying it to the larger spots. It amazes me that the SIDC and Dr.Svalgaard were not aware of this at the time. The Catania records from my checks this morning do not use the Walmeier weighting factor. I need to do a more thorough analysis but when comparing the drawings of Locarno and Catania, the latter does look to be recording more specks. The 8th Feb is a good day to compare, Catania showing far greater detail.
From what I can gather the larger spots are getting multiplied by 3 or 5 and there appears to be a sunspot threshold size where it can also be multiplied by 2. They are not appearing to use the full Waldmeier weighting method as described by Dr. Svalgaard above. One could assume the trimmed down weighting factor is to allow for the technical differences in the the original Wolf 64x and the 1957 design Locarno Zeiss telescope. The SIDC have gone to great pains to keep the record continuous.
Locarno produce a yearly report and repeat the body of text each year. They give a clue to the cut down version of Waldmeier’s system in the text.
“The very simple definition of the Relative Sunspot Number R, given by Rudolf Wolf
(1851 and 1858) :
R = k(10g + f)
were g is the number of observed sunspot-groups, f the total number of observed
sunspots and k the reduction coefficient, contrasts with the relative complexity of
their determination. The contrast is due to the precaution needed to preserve the
calibration defined by Rudolf Wolf. Several criteria for the control of this calibration
have been enounced by Max Waldmeier (1968, 1971).
At the level of the basic visual observation, a thorough experience is required to
determine correctly the number of groups (g), wich is not necessarily concordant with
the physical grouping based on magnetic field polarities, and in wich, moreover, the
limits set between A1 groups and pores may depend upon seeing quality and
instrumental parameters. As to f , the weighting of large umbrae (e.g. M.Waldmeier,
1961), must be applied self consistently, even after minimum periods, in order to keep
the link to the sunspot areas unchanged.
From January1,1981, the relative numbers are being calculated at the Royal Belgian
Observatory and edited by the Sunspot Index Data Center, (now Solar Influences Data
analysis Center, SIDC), according to a metod wich hardly differs from that used in
Zürich, in order to preserve the omogeneity of the series. ”
As all stations are factored against Locarno, this means the Waldmeier factor is having a large impact on the finished daily sunspot.
So what seems to be fleshing out is that Waldmeier introduced for whatever reason a big step in the sunspot record (22%) in 1945 when he introduced his sunspot weighting factors. When Locarno was the main telescope when the SIDC took over in 1981 they used and continue to use a cut down version of the Waldmeier system and today with even better equipment the Catania telescope requires no Waldmeier factor to keep aligned with the past.
I maintain that modern technology and differences between telescopes occurs even though the base 64x magnification remains the same. With every new piece of evidence that is being uncovered more weight is put on the importance of maintaining the Layman’s Sunspot Count for comparing to the pre 1945 sunspot records.
Are the real scientists finally getting the upper hand again over the alchemists such as Al Gore?? We may not be out of danger yet as the Global Warming bizzaro’s seem to keep coming back as though they havent been constantly contradicted for the last 20 years.
If science succumbs to alchemy, humanity will enter a long dark age with the likes of Al Gore ruling the World; a very brutal World on par with the former medaevil era of old.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 19, 2010 at 4:37 pm
The big Ap spike in late 2003 is on an inner planet config` that only occurs once every 6.4 years, and is in a very positive relationship to the 1st three outer planets.
Quite amusing, actually, like reading the horoscope page in the local rag.
Tom Rowan says:
September 19, 2010 at 5:48 pm
The Layman’s Sunspot Count has many examples of spotless days the ‘government’ has counted as having spots.
Just means that the Layman’s count is rubbish. The ‘government’ is not the only one counting spots. So even if they wanted to inflate the count, they couldn’t.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 19, 2010 at 10:09 pm
I was wrong. Locarno does use a modified version of the Waldmeier weighting
Not a modified version. The exact same.
From what I can gather the larger spots are getting multiplied by 3 or 5 and there appears to be a sunspot threshold size where it can also be multiplied by 2. They are not appearing to use the full Waldmeier weighting method as described by Dr. Svalgaard above.
You have just described the full Waldmeier weighting.
“As to f , the weighting of large umbrae (e.g. M.Waldmeier, 1961), must be applied self consistently, even after minimum periods, in order to keep the link to the sunspot areas unchanged.”
They even say so themselves.
As all stations are factored against Locarno, this means the Waldmeier factor is having a large impact on the finished daily sunspot.
As I have said so many times, the Waldmeier jump has been carried into the modern count. We just need to increase all sunspot numbers before 1945 by 22% and all is well.
continue to use a cut down version of the Waldmeier system
No, they use the one and only version.
I maintain that modern technology and differences between telescopes occurs even though the base 64x magnification remains the same. With every new piece of evidence that is being uncovered more weight is put on the importance of maintaining the Layman’s Sunspot Count for comparing to the pre 1945 sunspot records.
It is clear from F10.7 and the geomagnetic record that the only upwards jump was Waldmeier’s. ‘Maintaining’ a viewpoint is not science.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
September 19, 2010 at 10:09 pm
I was wrong. Locarno does use a modified version of the Waldmeier weighting
Not a modified version. The exact same.
From what I can gather the larger spots are getting multiplied by 3 or 5 and there appears to be a sunspot threshold size where it can also be multiplied by 2. They are not appearing to use the full Waldmeier weighting method as described by Dr. Svalgaard above.
—————————-
You have just described the full Waldmeier weighting.
No you are wrong Dr. Svalgaard.
Check out the Locarno drawings from 15- 18 Sept. You will notice the main spot in 1106 getting weighting on some days and not others. You will also notice some of the larger pores not receiving weighting. They have trimmed the bottom off the Waldmeier system. This is most likely a result of seeing more specks/pores.
While your at it compare the same days on Catania…notice how many more specks are drawn?
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Feyt says:
September 19, 2010 at 3:32 pm
We know only so little about the influence of the sun on our climate.
Indeed, we don’t even know if it has any influence at all.
Some things are black and white (just like night and day)… and others are hot and cold (just like summer and winter)… some things are in technicolor (just like the northern lights)… some things change in geologic time (just like the precession of the equinoxes)… some things can be difficult to accept (like Piers Corbyn’s solar influenced forecasts)… some things can be difficult to see (like the solar variations in UV light)… some things are impossible to feel (like the solar wind in your faces)… but everything is impossible to perceive if you live in a world where the sun don’t shine… and that even applies to Galactic Gatekeepers.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 19, 2010 at 11:24 pm
You will notice the main spot in 1106 getting weighting on some days and not others. You will also notice some of the larger pores not receiving weighting. They have trimmed the bottom off the Waldmeier system. This is most likely a result of seeing more specks/pores.
They have not trimmed anything. The seeing changes and a spot may fluctuate in and out of its ‘class’ and the observes may differ. More specks and pores are a natural consequence of L&P.
While your at it compare the same days on Catania…notice how many more specks are drawn?
With the same size of telescope [15 cm, x64]… showing that the telescope size is not the important factor, in spite of what you ‘maintain’. Rather the observer’s judgement and seeing.
Leif Svalgaard says:
the observes may differ.
In fact, observer Cagnoti does not use the Waldmeier scheme at all, the others [Manna and Cortesi, the principal observer with 50+ experience] do.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 11:55 pm
In fact, observer Cagnoti does not use the Waldmeier scheme at all, the others [Manna and Cortesi, the principal observer with 50+ experience] do.
I should correct this. Cagnoti sometimes do and sometimes do not apply the scheme. Perhaps he just has a different perception of where the boundaries between the sizes are. This is, of course, why we have the personal K-factor.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 11:44 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
September 19, 2010 at 11:24 pm
You will notice the main spot in 1106 getting weighting on some days and not others. You will also notice some of the larger pores not receiving weighting. They have trimmed the bottom off the Waldmeier system. This is most likely a result of seeing more specks/pores.
They have not trimmed anything. The seeing changes and a spot may fluctuate in and out of its ‘class’ and the observes may differ. More specks and pores are a natural consequence of L&P.
While your at it compare the same days on Catania…notice how many more specks are drawn?
With the same size of telescope [15 cm, x64]… showing that the telescope size is not the important factor, in spite of what you ‘maintain’. Rather the observer’s judgement and seeing.
Disagree, the Waldmeier factor is coming in at a higher level. I will do a full report on this.
So you did notice the Catania drawings have a lot more detail. Yes both the aperture and focal length is the same in this case, but as we have discussed many times the design of the telescope and optics also plays a big part. I will include a comparison of Locarno/Catania in my report.
I am surprised at how little your knowledge is on this subject.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 20, 2010 at 12:02 am
Disagree, the Waldmeier factor is coming in at a higher level. I will do a full report on this.
Very vague and not applicable as Catania does not use the Waldmeier weighting.
design of the telescope and optics also plays a big part.
No, not at all as long as certain minimum requirements are met.
About Cagnotti, Locarno reports:
Marco Cagnotti, a young observer, should be the successor of Sergio Cortesi. He is now in a “training” period, where they are comparing his raw counts with those from Sergio.
@ur momisugly Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 10:38 pm
“Quite amusing, actually, like reading the horoscope page in the local rag.”
I have not read such material for several decades, so I had no idea they are now doing deterministic forecasts for solar activity, and terrestrial temperature anomalies.
Tom Rowan: You wrote early in the thread, “Remember too, the government’s count of sunspot activity is being inflated.” And you have persisted with this in follow-up discussions with Leif.
There’s something I and others are curious about. John Finn asked above, but I haven’t found your reply to his question. It remains (paraphrased), why would anyone want to inflate sunspot count? That is, what benefit is there of an inflated count?
@ur momisugly Malaga View says:
September 19, 2010 at 11:30 pm
I have been working alongside Piers for the last 3yrs and have added improvements to weather event forecasts, and have myself pioneered the understanding of what is driving all short term deviations in temperature.
I can assure you that when we both release our findings, there will be no doubt whatsoever that the Sun is driving it all.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 20, 2010 at 2:47 am
I can assure you that when we both release our findings, there will be no doubt whatsoever that the Sun is driving it all.
I am really looking forward to the release of your findings… for me it has always seemed Elementary, my dear Watson that the Sun is driving it all… this seems entirely logical based upon first principles… however, Elementary, my dear Watson is not a valid scientific argument… so I hope you findings are published soon. Good luck and Thank you.
Bob Tisdale says:
September 20, 2010 at 2:22 am
why would anyone want to inflate sunspot count?
1) To retain some credibility in their flawed theories and predictions.
2) To maintain (or grow) their annual budget allocations.
3) To keep the solar flare scare in the public eye.
Wow! I feel like I’m jumping into the middle of a dog fight here, something you should never do, especially as I can not even stand in your shadow Lief. (or yours Vukcevic)
But Lief, you said above to Frets comment: “We know little about the influence of the sun on our climate.” Indeed, we don’t even know if it has any influence at all.
We don’t know what if any? influence/effect the sun has on our weather? Are you saying we don’t if there would be any change if we somehow totally block out the sun – – for a few months??? I think what you meant is, as you stated in a previous post you (we) do not know what minor/subtle influences the sun has on the energy flows of the Earth as we have not identified any mechanism of the sun that would make subtle changes, to-date. And as to your point we should be quiet about what we don’t know while I agree you all should not be arguing about things not in fact, it is always about what we don’t know that we study and discuss to develop new ideas and theory.
If you stand only on what you know, you will never know more and wisdom will pass you by. (Old American Indian proverb.)