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.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 20, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Carla says:
September 20, 2010 at 12:58 pm
One more thing, it was around 1600-1700 maunder time, when the North Magnetic pole starts its journey to the Western Hemi.
~
Not too exciting, as the magnetic pole sort of goes around in a circle every ~700-900 years, so has been there before…
~
Is kinda exciting Leif, I mean, I mean, hangs out over a thousand years in the eastern hemi doing its looping, then for “unexplained or a reason yet not understood,” heads into the western hemisphere around Maunder time. Now whilst in the western hemi it has already done a 180 and appears to be heading back to the eastern hemi again. If you are right shouldn’t it hang out in the western hemi for over a thousand years and loop around a while before heading east again?
Vuk etc. says:
September 20, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Carla says:
September 20, 2010 at 12:58 pm
One more thing, it was around 1600-1700 maunder time, when the North Magnetic pole starts its journey to the Western Hemi.
Hi Carla
Strange thing happen at that time. The Northern Hemisphere and the Arctic in particular, experienced huge magnetic shock, which is still, to this day, resonating through the globe.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC3.htm
~
A magnetic shock wave.. sounds bout right. Perhaps the boundary of an interstellar cloudlett. Making that cloudlett or mini instellar cloud only 400 or so years long for our solar system to pass through. We are just learning that within larger interstellar clouds, like the one the heliosphere had been in for thousands of years, also contain smaller mini clouds which vary and range in size as well
In the terrestrial system we see this often and know where warmer and cooler clouds come together lots of energy is manifested in the form of lightning. If you take that to a larger scale such as the interstellar scale a magnetic shock wave is possible.
Wannabe galactic gatekeeper
lol
continued..
Now why would we think that there is no turblence in the interstellar realm around us? When the whole galaxy if filled with chaos and turbulence.
Last ramble on comment.
It disappoints me that the planetary theorists, don’t take into account that which affects the whole system including the Jovian planets.
Can’t help myself this morning. lol
Question for the planetary theorists.
If we entered a small cloudlett around or just prior to Maunder, where on your sunspot graphs would you put the exit? 1957-2003 hmm big flux tube
Leif can obviously speak for himself, but the only thing you achieve with this kind of smear is to weaken your own case. You have a history of spreading false claims and RC-style “moderation” when your case is challenged (links can be provided), it isn’t pretty.
Stick to the science please….
Carla says: September 21, 2010 at 5:45 am
……….where on your sunspot graphs would you put the exit?
Not in our lifetime, 50 year shut-down 2180-2230.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 20, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Tom Rowan says:
September 20, 2010 at 1:16 pm
What I do know is that “spots” are counted on spotless days.
Clearly one does not count spots on spotless days. Now, somebody may not want to count the spots that are there, so declares the day to be spotless. There is also the fact that some spots only live a few hours, so there can be spots in the morning and gone by evening, so ‘spotless’ may depend on when you count.
Today we know that scientists have agendas.
There are hundreds of amateurs all over the world counting sunspots showing that there is no inflation of the count.
I think the Layman’s Sunspot Count demonstrates this conclusively.
The Layman’s count deliberately omit the smallest spots in order to get a sunspot number that is as low as possible. Go check out their website and my comments over there.
==========================
==========================
I never read posts at Layman’s Sunspot Count Leif.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
The pictures at the Layman’s Sunspot Count speak in volumes.
Evidently, you must be some sort of expert sunspot counter Leif.
I am just an accountant.
Can you give me your expert mathmatical count of “11” spots? Any “11” spot day will do.
“You have a history of spreading false claims and RC-style “moderation” when your case is challenged (links can be provided)”
Spare us your PC puritanism. I get why my ancestors left.
Vuk etc. says:
September 21, 2010 at 6:27 am
Carla says: September 21, 2010 at 5:45 am
……….where on your sunspot graphs would you put the exit?
Not in our lifetime, 50 year shut-down 2180-2230.
~
You’re speaking of even a larger scale structure.
I’m speaking of smaller scale, (mini in galactic size) structure which we have only recently begun to “see.” Smaller cloudletts and surrounding electro magnetic filamentary structures.
Group W Angus, still wondering what the IBEX discovered ribbon is evolving into this year. It moves, it breathes, it changes.. because what it enounters at the boundary changes.
And that not in our life time statement applies to what? Cause more recent statements indicate “today tommorrow or maybe a hundred..” That not in our lifetime is no longer true.
Vuk etc. says:
September 20, 2010 at 3:23 pm
The Institute of Geophysics at the ETH Zurich would not be amused.
Potsdam, perhaps…
Rapid change of mind?
No, their data is good, it is your claim that is nonsense.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 21, 2010 at 1:00 am
the changes are different in extent, from tropics to sub-tropics to mid/higher latitudes etc.
So, the changes are different from place to place. This means that you can always find some changes that matches anything. This is what is meant by ‘cherry picking’.
Tom Rowan says:
September 21, 2010 at 6:36 am
Evidently, you must be some sort of expert sunspot counter Leif.
Yes, I have studied this for 40 years.
Can you give me your expert mathmatical count of “11″ spots? Any “11″ spot day will do.
A day with a single tiny spot gets a sunspot number of 11, or on SIDC’s scale a 7.
This is how sunspot accounting works. If there are 80 spots distributed in 8 groups, the SSN will be SSN=10*8+80=160. SIDC in Brussels would report this as 96=0.6*160.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 20, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Tom Rowan says:
September 20, 2010 at 1:33 pm
During 3 consecutive spotless days, our government counted 1 spotless day.
===============================================
Because these were not all spotless, here is Locarno in Switzerland [not your government]: http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2010/loc-d20100910.JPG
=========================================
With that impeccable logic, our next total solar eclipse will occur in September of 2081, Zurich time.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 21, 2010 at 7:06 am
========================
Tom Rowan says:
September 21, 2010 at 6:36 am
Evidently, you must be some sort of expert sunspot counter Leif.
=============================
Leif: Yes, I have studied this for 40 years.
==============================
Can you give me your expert mathematical count of “11″ spots? Any “11″ spot day will do.
======================
Leif: A day with a single tiny spot gets a sunspot number of 11, or on SIDC’s scale a 7.
This is how sunspot accounting works. If there are 80 spots distributed in 8 groups, the SSN will be SSN=10*8+80=160. SIDC in Brussels would report this as 96=0.6*160.
===================
Now that you have established your credentials as an expert mathematical expert in counting sunspots, will you please give us the mathatical expression of “11” spots?
Pretty please with sugar on it?
Please put this in mathematical terms, so we mere bean counters can understand.
(X = 11)
What is X Leif?
Anything interesting in here?
Possible Solar volcanic correlation
Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
September 21, 2010 at 6:02 am
Leif can obviously speak for himself, but the only thing you achieve with this kind of smear is to weaken your own case. You have a history of spreading false claims and RC-style “moderation” when your case is challenged (links can be provided), it isn’t pretty.
Stick to the science please….
Your right, he can speak for himself.
And we don’t you to remind us. Your past record is nothing to stand on.
Tom Rowan says:
September 21, 2010 at 7:48 am
Please put this in mathematical terms, so we mere bean counters can understand.
(X = 11) What is X Leif?
Bean counters also have accounting rules that must be followed. The sunspot counting rule takes into account that sunspots occurs in ‘groups’, and then the rule [established around 1850] is that the sunspot number is 10*[number of groups]+[number of spots]. So if there is but a single, tiny, teeny, minuscule spot, it obviously makes up a group [contaning just one spot], so the rule says that SSN = 10*1 + 1 = 11. For various reasons that number [which NOAA would report] is reduced by SIDC by multiplying by 0.6, so SSN(SIDC) would be [for our example], SSN(SIDC) = 0.6*11 = 7 [rounded to whole number].
Carla says:
September 21, 2010 at 5:09 am
Wannabe galactic gatekeeper
Would you settle for Celestial Cloud Chaser? ☺
Leif Svalgaard says: September 21, 2010 at 7:06 am
No, their data is good, it is your claim that is nonsense.
If data is good, which bit than you qualify as nonsense?
The Northern Hemisphere and the Arctic in particular, experienced huge magnetic shock, which is still, to this day, resonating through the globe.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC3.htm
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 21, 2010 at 8:38 am
Tom Rowan says:
September 21, 2010 at 7:48 am
Please put this in mathematical terms, so we mere bean counters can understand.
(X = 11) What is X Leif?
Bean counters also have accounting rules that must be followed. The sunspot counting rule takes into account that sunspots occurs in ‘groups’, and then the rule [established around 1850] is that the sunspot number is 10*[number of groups]+[number of spots]. So if there is but a single, tiny, teeny, minuscule spot, it obviously makes up a group [contaning just one spot], so the rule says that SSN = 10*1 + 1 = 11. For various reasons that number [which NOAA would report] is reduced by SIDC by multiplying by 0.6, so SSN(SIDC) would be [for our example], SSN(SIDC) = 0.6*11 = 7 [rounded to whole number].
========================================
Therein lies your fallacy.
NOAA is counting no spots as 10*1=11
0(10*1+1) = 0. It does not equal “11.”
====================================
Say we were “counting” candle watts deep in a coal mine, instead of sunpots:
For the sake of canaries, in a 24 hour period we would count the times the candle flickered out.
If the candle flickered out 11 times during that 24 hour period, would Leif tell us the candle never flickered out?
Seems to me that everytime the sun flickers out and has zero sunspots it should be at least mentioned.
But according to Leif, counting the times the sun flickers out ought never be counted in a 24 hour period.
Looking back over solar cycle 24, Leif cannot tell you how many times the sun flickered out in a 24 hour period for the entire cycle.
Seems to me we have the technology to count such spotless moments in time. According to expert sunpot counters, these times must be inflated to “11” no matter if the sun is blank.
Seems to me that canaries would be interested in how many times a candle flickered out in a coal mine. Counting the times the sun went blank during what could be the beginning of another grand minimum might be just as important.
Alas, we must rely on “experts” telling us to ignore a blank sun, lack of sunspots altogether, and spotless days. And they do this behind a curtain of so-called “math” that counts zero as “11.”
Correction:
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 21, 2010 at 8:38 am
Tom Rowan says:
September 21, 2010 at 7:48 am
Please put this in mathematical terms, so we mere bean counters can understand.
(X = 11) What is X Leif?
Bean counters also have accounting rules that must be followed. The sunspot counting rule takes into account that sunspots occurs in ‘groups’, and then the rule [established around 1850] is that the sunspot number is 10*[number of groups]+[number of spots]. So if there is but a single, tiny, teeny, minuscule spot, it obviously makes up a group [contaning just one spot], so the rule says that SSN = 10*1 + 1 = 11. For various reasons that number [which NOAA would report] is reduced by SIDC by multiplying by 0.6, so SSN(SIDC) would be [for our example], SSN(SIDC) = 0.6*11 = 7 [rounded to whole number].
========================================
Therein lies your fallacy.
NOAA is counting no spots as 10*1+1=11
0(10*1+1) = 0. It does not equal “11.”
====================================
Say we were “counting” candle watts deep in a coal mine, instead of sunpots:
For the sake of canaries, in a 24 hour period we would count the times the candle flickered out.
If the candle flickered out 11 times during that 24 hour period, would Leif tell us the candle never flickered out?
Seems to me that everytime the sun flickers out and has zero sunspots it should be at least mentioned.
But according to Leif, counting the times the sun flickers out ought never be counted in a 24 hour period.
Looking back over solar cycle 24, Leif cannot tell you how many times the sun flickered out in a 24 hour period for the entire cycle.
Seems to me we have the technology to count such spotless moments in time. According to expert sunpot counters, these times must be inflated to “11″ no matter if the sun is blank.
Seems to me that canaries would be interested in how many times a candle flickered out in a coal mine. Counting the times the sun went blank during what could be the beginning of another grand minimum might be just as important.
Alas, we must rely on “experts” telling us to ignore a blank sun, lack of sunspots altogether, and spotless days. And they do this behind a curtain of so-called “math” that counts zero as “11.”
Tom Rowan says:
September 21, 2010 at 9:50 am
NOAA is counting no spots as 10*1=11
0(10*1+1) = 0. It does not equal “11.”
If they count 10*1+1=11 it is because the observed 1.
You can undoubtedly find days [2009/11/13, 2009/11/14 perhaps] where NOAA reported 0, but other observers [e.g. Brussels] report a spot. This is a natural consequence of the short life time of small spots.
Seems to me we have the technology to count such spotless moments in time. According to expert sunpot counters, these times must be inflated to “11″ no matter if the sun is blank.
We can make a sunspot number every five seconds, but that is meaningless as we use the sunspot number as a measure of long-term variability.
Vuk etc. says:
September 21, 2010 at 9:37 am
If data is good, which bit that you qualify as nonsense?
The Northern Hemisphere and the Arctic in particular, experienced huge magnetic shock, which is still, to this day, resonating through the globe.
Both the clauses in the statement ‘The North.. globe.’. Quantify ‘huge’ and prove ‘to this day’. Or rather, forget it, it is not worth considering. ‘Resonating through the globe’ is so bad it is not even wrong.
Tom Rowan
Sunspot count method should be blamed on Rudolf Wolf. He was deliberating for months about the problem. One day he went to buy some cheese, two apparent identical slices were marked 10 and 11 rappens. To his amazement shop girl explained that the 10 rappens slice did not have any holes but the 11 r slice had one hole (more holes in Swiss cheese more expensive it is). Hurrah (in German) he shouted, the rest is as they say history.
Vuk etc. says:
September 21, 2010 at 10:30 am
One day he went to buy some cheese, two apparent identical slices were marked 10 and 11 rappens. etc…
Complete nonsense
Leif Svalgaard says: September 21, 2010 at 10:24 am
———
Now doc, if you looked at
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC3.htm
(no hits from Belgium or Petaluma, unless you gone across to Germany), ‘huge’ and ‘resonance’ etc are explained on the graph.
Just do a simple and very educational experiment: have two eggs, one fresh one hard boiled, spin them together next to each other.
I consider the Earth as a fresh egg, you appear to think of it as a hard boiled one.
Vuk etc. says:
One day he went to buy some cheese, two apparent identical slices were marked 10 and 11 rappens. etc…
Leif Svalgaard says:
Complete nonsense
It’s true! ( Some )Scandinavians have no sense of humour.