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.
BarryW says: September 18, 2010 at 9:44 am
David Archibald says: September 18, 2010 at 9:47 pm
Carsten Arnholm, Norway says: September 19, 2010 at 1:52 am
rbateman says: September 19, 2010 at 2:20 am
I noticed an error in my hastily prepared graph, Oct2008 was off almost a year on the x-axis. It is corrected here:
http://i55.tinypic.com/2dj2fc9.jpg
Livingston & Penn 2010
http://www.probeinternational.org/Livingston-penn-2010.pdf
I will attend a lecture by Mike Lockwood later this week at which I expect he will make the case that the sun does not have a significant effect on climate. A quick glance at the Central England Temperature record which he will be using does not show a particularly strong correlation with Maunder or Dalton minima. Can anyone comment on his work.
Well spake, Milwaukee Bob @ur momisugly 5:40 AM.
Leif has endured much speculation from me but despite his best efforts, I can’t help myself.
==================
Leif Svalgaard:
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.
Leif Svalgaard: 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.
===============================================
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
There are dozens of photographs taken this year that tout “sunspots” where none exist. You can see spotless and speckless days “counted” as having sunspots.
Again, WUWT readers can simply click on this: http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
Look for yourselves….pretty simple, easy to compare, and all that “rubbish.”
==================================================
Bob Tisdale says:
September 20, 2010 at 2:22 am
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?
===========================================
John Kerry, (who served in Viet Nam,) is sitting on legislation to tax us all for nice weather and a steady climate.
John Kerry has boldly proclaimed that the “Sunspot Theory” has been fully debunked.
Algore, Kerry, the EPA, and NOAA believe that the earth is warming, it is happening at an unprecedented rate, and that man made carbon emissions, (pollution in their words,) are causing catastrophic and irreversable global warming.
Why do we have 600 degree days & nights in Egg Harbor, Wisconcin?
Why has NOAA, NASA, & GISS been caught red handed time after time “adjusting” tempuratures to fit their phony models.
I don’t know that there is even a stated “sunspot theory.” We all know that during times of low solar activity, the earth cools down. We know that there appears to be a correlation between solar activity and climate change.
I think we are learning about the sun at an exponential rate. We might be witnessing a grand solar minimum at this very moment.
The earth has been cooling for over a decade. It snowed in the Amazon this year.
Perhaps because of lower solar activity now, (what was once measured solely by sunspots,) we will have some answers.
Why do global warming advocates “adjust” tempuratures up?
Why do global warming advocates “adjust” the sunspost number?
Who knows?
But the result is that both these long term historic records are being tampered and actual records have been “lost.” If the sunspot solar record is not being “counted” the same as it was in the past, then studies using corralative measurements will be made usesless.
If cooling can be traced back to low solar activity, boneheads like John Kerry will tell you with a straight face that solar activity could not have been the cause….after all, NOAA tells us we have sunspots……
Of course, you can go and peek with your own eyes at the laughable examples of “spots” being counted by your government.
See for yourselves….
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
Tom Rowan says:
September 20, 2010 at 7:47 am
The Layman’s Sunspot Count has many examples of spotless days the ‘government’ has counted as having spots.
I have studied this for years [every day] and have never found this to be the case. ‘Many’ is more than ‘ few’, perhaps about 10, so show me ten such cases. And I don’t want to go search. Be explicit.
Why do global warming advocates “adjust” the sunspost number?
Show me even one such case. The sunspot number has only been adjusted twice: in 1861 and in 1874.
I think many of us jump to the wrong conclusion when we see statements that assert “we don’t really know if the sun has an effect on climate”, namely “duh — of course the Sun warms the Earth!”
But that’s not the issue. The crux of this issue is this: there have been three solar grand minima (Maunder, Spoerer and Dalton), which also coincided with a significant cooling of the climate. Was this merely a “coincidence”, or is there some underlying physical mechanism which explains how the sun causes this climate cooling? And (most important) exactly what is this mechanism?
The answer (according to Leif and many others who, unlike me, work in this field): nobody knows. There are many theories floating around, but nobody knows for sure.
From a statistical viewpoint, we’re looking for a _likelihood function_ that predicts the “probability of climate cooling” given a “solar grand minimum”. Does this function always return zero? No, because we’ve already seen three positive instances. Does this function always return one? Many of us would (love|detest) that outcome, but there is not enough evidence to support such a grand assertion.
So, purely for the sake of argument, let’s assume the best ‘uninformed’ likelihood of 0.5. This makes the problem equivalent to the biased-coin problem: “What is the minimal run of heads (or tails) that proves a coin is biased.
For example, if a flip a coin 20 times and get all heads, then I’m very confident the coin is rigged. But what is the minimal run length, i.e. how many “heads in row” would it take, as a minimum, to assert with confidence “this coin is rigged”.
The threshold of such confidence usually starts at 5%, or 1 out of 20. So getting 3 heads in a row, 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 => 12.5% is “not significant”. Another run or two in the sequence would give us 6.25% and 3.125% and would start making us “confident” that bias exists.
So, “three grand minima in a row” is not statistically significant, _unless_ we can find a likelihood function that can do better than flipping a coin.
Hope that helps,
:-]
Tom Rowan: In response to my questions, “why would anyone want to inflate sunspot count? That is, what benefit is there of an inflated count?”, you paraphrased them, “Why do global warming advocates ‘adjust’ the sunspost number?”, and replied, “Who knows?”
If you can’t perceive a benefit, does it seem likely that anyone would be tampering with sunspot counts?
Malaga View says: “1) To retain some credibility in their flawed theories and predictions.”
What flawed theories?
You continued, “3) To keep the solar flare scare in the public eye.”
What solar flare scare? How many in the general public even know there are solar cycles? Few.
Bob Tisdale says:
September 20, 2010 at 9:20 am
to Tom Rowan:
If you can’t perceive a benefit, does it seem likely that anyone would be tampering with sunspot counts?
The only people that tamper with the sunspot count are the people running the Layman’s sunspot count, in order to support their agenda. Hundreds of observers all over the world do not conspire to fudge their sunspot counts, so isn’t it time to stop this tampering nonsense?
>> … does it seem likely that anyone would be tampering with sunspot counts?
Not unless they could also tamper with the 10.7cm radio flux proxy, which historically has closely followed the sunspot counts (at least up to the L&P fadeout). That would require falsifying the output of every Dicke radiometer in the world, not a trivial task.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicke_radiometer
@John Day says:
September 20, 2010 at 8:16 am
“…is there some underlying physical mechanism which explains how the sun causes this climate cooling? And (most important) exactly what is this mechanism?
There are many theories floating around, but nobody knows for sure.”
Observations show that surface temperatures drop when the solar wind velocity is lower, for sure.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 20, 2010 at 10:09 am
Observations show that surface temperatures drop when the solar wind velocity is lower, for sure.
There are, for sure, no such observations. Claims galore, but no facts, or even hints.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 20, 2010 at 8:13 am
We have explained and demonstrated the overcounting paradox many times to you.
You used to say “This is what passes for a sunspot these days”.
They were counting pores. Remember? This is when we were figuring out how to measure instead of count.
One abuse of the counting system lies in the padding of UT from both sides.
Here is something that is occuring right now on the Sun:
http://sdowww.lmsal.com/sdomedia/SunInTime/2010/09/18/l_HMImag.jpg
http://sdowww.lmsal.com/sdomedia/SunInTime/2010/09/19/l_HMImag.jpg
http://sdowww.lmsal.com/sdomedia/SunInTime/2010/09/20/l_HMImag.jpg
From whence does the locus of this shell polarity configuration emanate?
It rotates with the Sun, so that is at least one clue.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 20, 2010 at 8:13 am
We have explained and demonstrated the overcounting paradox many times to you.
There is no over-counting. Wolfer started including pores back in the late 1870s. This is the correct way of quantifying solar activity, as pores also harbor magnetic fields.
This is when we were figuring out how to measure instead of count.
The sunspot area is very well correlated with the sunspot count including the pores.
One abuse of the counting system lies in the padding of UT from both sides.
There is no abuse of the counting system, only lack of understanding on your and Geoff’s part.
rbateman says:
September 20, 2010 at 10:25 am
From whence does the locus of this shell polarity configuration emanate?
What configuration? If you mean a ring of opposite polarity or of any polarity, then that occurs quite often. As the magnetic field from a sunspot decays, it is caught up in the supergranular flow and often migrates to the edge of the supergranule, so you end up with a ‘network’ of cells.
rbateman says:
September 20, 2010 at 10:21 am
We have explained and demonstrated the overcounting paradox many times to you.
There is no recent over-counting. I have explained and demonstrated to both of you [and even to jinki] many times that the current count is an undercount, i.e. too low, so it is time to get off the ‘inflated’ over-count meme, as it is dead wrong. It is amazing that you could fall for this in the first place.
Going back in time, Wolf bumped up his counts in 1861 and in 1874. Perhaps you are suggesting that we also get rid of those [necessary] corrections. Waldmeier screwed up the count in 1945 [and this persists to this day], but that is long ago and easily corrected for: just increase everything pre-1945 by 22%.
Tom Rowan says:
September 20, 2010 at 7:47 am
Why do global warming advocates “adjust” the sunspost number?
Who knows?
Most global warming advocates are perfectly happy to acknowledge the current low sunspot count. They have been at great pains to point out that the sunspot count peaked in the late 1950s. This, they argue, shows that the recent warming trend has nothing to do with sunspot numbers (solar activity). If the sunspot count stays low while global temperatures remain high the AGW case will be considerably strengthened – or that is how it will be perceived.
The earth has been cooling for over a decade.
Has it? Do you have any evidence for this apart from one or two weather reports?
Leif Svalgaard says: “…isn’t it time to stop this tampering nonsense?”
I asked why he believed someone was tampering with them, and no motive was provided, so my follow-up question was intended to reinforce that lack of motive. That’s all.
Regards.
Bob Tisdale says:
September 20, 2010 at 12:11 pm
“…isn’t it time to stop this tampering nonsense?”
I asked why he believed someone was tampering with them, and no motive was provided, so my follow-up question was intended to reinforce that lack of motive. That’s all.
I was not clear. It was meant for Tom Rowan, not for you.
Ergo the problems of short posts,= not understood
Long detailed post with many supporting links= TLDR “too long didn’t read” response by most.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 20, 2010 at 9:32 am
Bob Tisdale says:
September 20, 2010 at 9:20 am
to Tom Rowan:
If you can’t perceive a benefit, does it seem likely that anyone would be tampering with sunspot counts?
The only people that tamper with the sunspot count are the people running the Layman’s sunspot count, in order to support their agenda. Hundreds of observers all over the world do not conspire to fudge their sunspot counts, so isn’t it time to stop this tampering nonsense?
~
Sorry guys had to giggle..
Vuks, howz the north magnetic pole excursion back towards the east doing? Any bumps looking like it might hang out in the western hemi for a few hundred more? Or is still headed east for Siberia? Whilst it was over in the eastern hemi it hung out looped around, hung out looped around and then hung out some more before heading west. Have to wonder what did trip the lights fandango for it to start heading into the western hemi to “begin” with?..
Vuks are you saying that the suns polar magnetic fields may decline even more in the next coming years? And this means our heliosphere gets to shrink even more? All that pressure..my oh my..
[snip. try again ~ ctm]
One more thing, it was around 1600-1700 maunder time, when the North Magnetic pole starts its journey to the Western Hemi.
Again, I do not know the reason for the inflated sunspot count. I have a pretty good idea of why the tempurature record is being inflated.
What I do know is that “spots” are counted on spotless days.
Again, do not take my word for it. Look for yourselves.
NOAA adds to its “sunspot count” plaques and other invisible “spots.”
Back during the Maunder Minimum, no one had an agenda. Today we know that scientists have agendas.
You asked me what would motivate someone to count spots that clearly are not there.
You got me. We have so-called experts telling us the Artic ice is melting when it is not.
Would it serve the purposes of the Global Warming industry to absolve the sun in any role in climate change? I think it would.
Again, I am merely observing inflated “sunspot” counts that actually count non-existent spots.
You ask me for an explaination of why someone would do this and I direct your attention to a website that shows examples of what I am speaking to.
I don’t count sunspots for a living. I do not have any idea why someone would tamper with the count. But the fact is that they have inflated today’s numbers.
So when we compare charts of sunspot cycles, remember that today’s sunspots are being inflated. As to why is a great topic. For whatever reason, the sunspot record is being distorted upwards.
Again, you can take a look at it for yourself. You can decide whether the count is being inflated for yourself. I think it is. Joe Bastardi thinks it is. I think the Layman’s Sunspot Count demonstrates this conclusively.
Of course, check it out for yourselves. Once you have seen spots counted on spotless days, you can then wonder what would motivate someone to tamper with the sunspot record.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
Go ahead…the website won’t bite you, despite Leif’s missives. 🙂