An article in the New Scientist says:
But Dr. Leif Svalgaard, one of the worlds leading solar physicists and WUWT’s resident solar expert has this to say:
Solar max is a slippery concept. One can be more precise and *define* solar max for a given hemisphere as the time when the polar fields reverse in the hemisphere. The reversals usually differ by one or two years, so solar max will similarly differ. The North is undergoing reversal right now, so has reached maximum. The South is lagging, but already the polar field is rapidly decreasing, so reversal may be only a year away. Such asymmetry is very common.
Here is a link to the evolution of the polar fields as measured at WSO:
http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png
And here’s data all the way back to 1966, note there has not been a crossing of the polar fields yet in 2012, a typical event at solar max:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png
Here is a link to a talk on this: http://www.leif.org/research/ click
on paper 1540.
Dr. Svalgaard adds:
Solar max happens at different times for each hemisphere. In the North we are *at* max right now. For the South there is another year to go, but ‘max’ for a small cycle like 24 is a drawn out affair and will last several years. To say that max falls on a given date, e.g. Jan 3rd, 2013, at UT 04:15 is meaningless.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 7, 2012 at 5:48 am
All the figures show that there is a weak solar cycle variation [to be expected] on top of the general downward trend. This is regardless of L&P. F10.7, MSPI, CaII, Spots/Group, Owens et al (GCRs) all are what show this. L&P just happens to confirm the decline.
The figures show from many reliable sources that the sunspot magnetic strength follows the overall sunspot count. This is clearly shown in Fig. 6 which you have not denied. L&P and yourself are off the rails when suggesting the sunspot magnetic strength defies the weak but still upward trend of SC24 [to be expected]. The empirical evidence outweighs the erroneous data presented by yourself and L&P as questioned by many of high regard. The data collection method of L&P opposed by myself some years ago is now backed up by experts in the field.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/280
Geoff Sharp says:
October 7, 2012 at 8:13 am
The data collection method of L&P opposed by myself some years ago is now backed up by experts in the field.
You just don’t get it. The decline in all solar indicators is independent of L&P, the latter only serving as an explanation of the decline. And L and P are experts in the field [in particular Livingston who is the most experienced observer alive]. The data collection is unbiased as all spots are measured in every observing slot. The earliest data before 1998 were biased towards large spots, so are not used. That you oppose the most expert of the experts is not of any consequence.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 7, 2012 at 8:13 am
The data collection method of L&P opposed by myself some years ago is now backed up by experts in the field.
You are saying that “The data collection method of L&P … is now backed up by experts in the field”
From Geoff Sharp on October 6, 2012 at 9:51 pm:
Huh? I found an abstract of a 2011 presentation by L&P and “Svalgard” describing the method: “From 2001 to 2011 we have measured field strength and brightness at the darkest position in umbrae of 1750 spots using the Zeeman splitting of the Fe 1564.8 nm line. Only one observation per spot per day is carried out during our monthly telescope time of 3-4 days average.”
They collected data when they could, common in astronomy. How is their data collection method erroneous?
Of course the L&P data follows the sunspot cycle, in the sense of “following” that it tracks the cycle, which it would since it is sampling the cycle. But it could not be “following” the cycle in the sense of L&P lagging behind the cycle since L&P is a sampling.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 7, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Of course the L&P data follows the sunspot cycle, in the sense of “following” that it tracks the cycle, which it would since it is sampling the cycle
The salient feature of L&P is that in addition to the solar cycle dependence in the sense of there being more spots at maximum, there is a much stronger general decline of the magnetic field of the spots: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
I think it is safe to ignore Geoff’s wringing of hands when he is faced with an inconvenient truth. In fact, he should not complain at all, as L&P gives and explanation for Grand Minima with strong cosmic ray modulation [as observed].
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 7, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Huh? I found an abstract of a 2011 presentation by L&P and “Svalgard” describing the method: “From 2001 to 2011 we have measured field strength and brightness at the darkest position in umbrae of 1750 spots using the Zeeman splitting of the Fe 1564.8 nm line. Only one observation per spot per day is carried out during our monthly telescope time of 3-4 days average.”
They collected data when they could, common in astronomy. How is their data collection method erroneous?
You have the answer in your previous post. L&P changed the method by measuring all spots no matter how big, smaller spots by nature have a lower magnetic strength. As the presentations by the experts show the amount of smaller spots has increased while larger spots have decreased during SC24. L&P by treating small spots the same as large spots are erroneously displaying the magnetic strength of SC24 spots, all they are showing is we are having more smaller spots.
When the L&P data is filtered correctly it agrees with other studies that show the sunspot magnetic strength is aligned with the sunspot cycle [as fig. 6 and others show], there is no gradual decline towards a time when spots will not be seen. SC24 and most likely SC25 are part of a weak grand minimum that does not need a spurious L&P type “Effect” to explain it.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/280
Geoff Sharp says:
October 7, 2012 at 6:10 pm
L&P changed the method by measuring all spots no matter how big, smaller spots by nature have a lower magnetic strength.
That was done so early in the game that it does not impact the past decade.
all they are showing is we are having more smaller spots.
On the contrary we are loosing the small spots as deToma shows so nicely [bottom panel on slide 6], and as shown by the smaller number of spots per group.
When the L&P data is filtered correctly
You mean when you doctor the data?
SC24 and most likely SC25 are part of a weak grand minimum that does not need a spurious L&P type “Effect” to explain it.
Ah, that exposes your agenda. L&P is a threat to your ideas.
But, you are missing the point: the loss of small spots is shown by all the other indices I mentioned, regardless of L&P.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 7, 2012 at 6:10 pm
L&P by treating small spots the same as large spots are erroneously displaying the magnetic strength of SC24 spots, all they are showing is we are having more smaller spots.
the plot http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png shows ALL spots, the large ones are on top and the small ones on the bottom and that for both SC23 [since the maximum] and SC24. At the recent Mini-workshop at Sunspot (I’m not finished putting the presentations on the Wiki) http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Mini_SSN Workshop this was discussed at great length and deToma produced the bottom panel on slide 5 of the presentation I already linked to. The issue to answer was: for very small groups [the smallest we can see – your ‘specs’] has there been a decrease of the number of spots in these smallest groups [specks] since ~1990 and as you can see there has been such a decrease. This settled the matter. It was also found that the number of spots per group measured by the US Air Force matched that found by the SONNE observers [and Locarno] shown in the upper panel on slide 5. The initial flaw with deToma’s analysis was that the count was not normalized to the same size solar cycle, so her results simply showed that solar activity as a whole has decreased the past three cycles, and not anything about the change of distribution.
The presentation by Watson shows that the automatic detection of spots on MDI spots [which BTW does not work well at solar minimum so the values for 1996, 1997, and 2009 are suspect] and measuring the largest magnetic fields on all the spots on each day [using the MDI magnetograms] yields the same trend as L&P. Watson is now at NSO in Tucson and will be adapting his method to use HMI, so we can continue to follow the decent into a likely Maunder Minimum with modern data treated with correct science.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 7, 2012 at 6:10 pm
the sunspot magnetic strength is aligned with the sunspot cycle [as fig. 6 and others show],
Figure 6 [supplied by you, actually] show that from the maximum in 2000 to the [almost] maximum in 2011 the magnetic field has decreased by some 400 Gauss consistent with the change that L&P claim to have found, so Figure 6 is a nice confirmation of L&P.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 7, 2012 at 7:19 pm
That was done so early in the game that it does not impact the past decade.
Yes it does, the small spots by increasing skew the record. Everyone else is measuring the highest magnetic region as Solanki did before L&P.
On the contrary we are loosing the small spots as deToma shows so nicely [bottom panel on slide 6], and as shown by the smaller number of spots per group.
de Toma shows the total number of spots per group declining but what is important is the ratio of large spots to small spots. He also shows the large spots decreasing by 70% and small spots decreasing by 5%. He is a strong advocate for the L&P data being incorrect. Another study using FSU data that concentrates on individual spot sizes clearly shows a rise in small spots as large spots decrease.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/toma3.png
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/nag2.png
You mean when you doctor the data?
L&P and yourself are doing the doctoring. Everyone else is using the highest reading that all show a small but natural increase in sunspot magnetic strength as SC24 max approaches.
Ah, that exposes your agenda. L&P is a threat to your ideas.
On the contrary, but unlike you I prefer to uncover the facts instead of manufacturing or cherry picking data to suit an agenda. There are many questioning the L&P data, the science is far from settled.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 7, 2012 at 8:37 pm
Figure 6 [supplied by you, actually] show that from the maximum in 2000 to the [almost] maximum in 2011 the magnetic field has decreased by some 400 Gauss consistent with the change that L&P claim to have found, so Figure 6 is a nice confirmation of L&P.
I have no problem with the overall magnetic strength of SC24 being lower than SC23 at solar max. But as shown the magnetic strength is rising since solar minimum which is in direct contrast to L&P. After SC24 solar max we would expect another decline down to the next solar minimum and then rise towards SC25 max perhaps to a similar level of SC24 max. If there is a recovery during SC26 the magnetic values should recover likewise. This is very different to the constant decline of magnetic strength shown by L&P that does not show the ramp up of strength happening now. There is no mysterious force in the background, all we have are one or maybe two low cycles where the overall magnetic strength is declining BUT still closely following the ups and downs of the reduced sunspot record.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 7, 2012 at 8:56 pm
Everyone else is measuring the highest magnetic region as Solanki did before L&P.
Which is clearly wrongheaded as we are talking about solar activity as a whole. But even so, the results of Watson and of FSU both show that even the highest fields are decreasing. In a sense it doesn’t really matter which spots are decreasing, what matters is that there are fewer visible spots for a given magnetic field.
de Toma shows the total number of spots per group declining but what is important is the ratio of large spots to small spots.
That she does not show anything about. I wish she would.
He also shows the large spots decreasing by 70% and small spots decreasing by 5%.
She shows that the area of the large spots is decreasing between cycle 22 and 23. Of course large spots have large area so no surprise that the decrease in total area is large for large spots and small for small spots. But all she is showing is just that SC23 was smaller than SC22 which we all know.
He is a strong advocate for the L&P data being incorrect.
Not at all, nobody question L&P’s measurements.
You mean when you doctor the data?
when ‘filtered…’
the science is far from settled.
Science is never settled. What is settled is the data.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 7, 2012 at 9:10 pm
But as shown the magnetic strength is rising since solar minimum which is in direct contrast to L&P.
Since there were no large spots at solar minimum, the largest fields will, of course, increase as larger spots begin to appear. This is not in contrast to L&P which is concerned with the average field of all spots.
This is very different to the constant decline of magnetic strength shown by L&P that does not show the ramp up of strength happening now.
There is no ramp up of the ‘overall magnetic field’. The average field of all spots is declining by ~50 Gauss per year.
low cycles where the overall magnetic strength is declining BUT still closely following the ups and downs of the reduced sunspot record.
The careful measurements by L&P show a steady decline not following the ups and downs. And you are evading the critical issue that L&P are only confirming a trend that is seen in other solar indices. A good example is slide 3 which shows that for a given magnetic field the sunspot number has decreased by 30%, same as for given F10.7. That is the real L&P effect.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 7, 2012 at 9:10 pm
But as shown the magnetic strength is rising since solar minimum which is in direct contrast to L&P.
Since there were no large spots at solar minimum, the largest fields will, of course, increase as larger spots begin to appear: http://www.leif.org/research/L-and-P-larger.png . This is not in contrast to L&P which is concerned with the average field of all spots, which has been falling since 2000.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 7, 2012 at 10:04 pm
He is a strong advocate for the L&P data being incorrect.
—————————————-
Not at all, nobody question L&P’s measurements.
The measurements are not in question but WHAT they measure is. This is another example of your sophist ways and attempt at confusion. I have presented solid evidence from many including your peers that refute the L&P steady decline of the magnetic strength to 1500 gauss. That you ignore this evidence shows that you are not a subjective scientist and by using the faulty L&P data to predict an imminent Maunder Minimum type event puts you on very shaky ground.
No one questions that all indices are on the decline during SC24, but suggesting that spot magnetic strength is breaking away from the rest of the data that follows the sunspot cycle is erroneous.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 8, 2012 at 12:56 am
No one questions that all indices are on the decline during SC24, but suggesting that spot magnetic strength is breaking away from the rest of the data that follows the sunspot cycle is erroneous.
This is not a suggestion, but an observational fact. You may better study the evidence and learn something or two. The solar cycle as such has nothing to do with this. Show us that you are capable of straight thought and discuss Figure 2 and Figure 3. Perhaps Figure 3 is the easiest one. It shows [top] the MPSI [which is the magnetic field of all the plages on the disk, before it becomes sunspots and afterwards when the spots decay]. There is a strong solar cycle dependence, of course. In fact, on average SSN = 55 MPSI. But during SC22 the observed SSN was higher than that average and during SC23, the observed SSN was lower than the average. This means that for the same magnetic flux fewer sunspots were visible during SC23. That is what L&P confirms, as simple as that. Whether that leads to a Maunder Minimum like condition time will tell, but the evidence from GCRs [Owens et al.] strongly suggests so. Show us that you understand what Figure 3 is telling us.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 8, 2012 at 12:56 am
I have presented solid evidence from many including your peers that refute the L&P steady decline of the magnetic strength
This is what some peers [Hudson, 2012] say:
Livingston-Penn effect
• There’s no question that something is happening that we have not seen before
– We should be proud of this, and exploit it
• Phenomena associated with the Livingston-Penn observations are unmistakably novel and should motivate research into the physical origins of SSN and F10.7
Geoff Sharp says:
October 8, 2012 at 12:56 am
suggesting that spot magnetic strength is breaking away from the rest of the data that follows the sunspot cycle is erroneous
From another peer [talk accepted for AGU Fall Meeting 2012]:
Cycle 24: The Continuing Deviation Between the Sunspot Number and F10.7 Activity Indices
Ken Tapping, National Research Council, D.R.A.O., Penticton, BC, Canada
“Cycle 24 is marked by a continuing deviation between the sunspot number and 10.7cm solar radio flux indices which is unique since 1947. It reflects a decline in photospheric activity compared with that seen in the chromosphere and corona. The comparison to date indicates we are at or very close to the activity maximum. The deviations suggest two things: firstly that the Sun is doing something different, perhaps similar to previous periods of extended low activity, and secondly, that there is a need for a certain care in how we rate sunspot number (and F10.7) based proxies when modelling historical irradiances”
Well, I’ve been having fun. Learned a lot.
Found a good dictionary of astronomical terms:
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/terms.htm
Found a good page explaining many solar concepts I’ve been wondering about:
http://www.cora.nwra.com/~werne/eos/text/convection_zone.html
Part of a larger set of topics available by raw index:
http://www.cora.nwra.com/~werne/eos/text/
Problem being the CZ one is apparently done but the links don’t all work, others from the index are partially done with some hardly stubs, the group is a work that was in progress. By the index it’s from 2000, hope the theories haven’t changed much since then.
They were done by Dr. Joseph Werne. He was at “NorthWest Research Associates” in Colorado, became “Senior Research Scientist” in 2001, Googling yields a mention of becoming a VP, he last published in 2005, therefore he is likely dead. So they’re not getting any more complete.
Also located a more-advanced presentation on sunspot magnetic fields, still digesting (and is the title of slide 14 a typo?):
http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/solanki/saas_fee_39/SaasFee39_Handout_L3.pdf
More learning to do, more researching.
More wondering about the strange quirks. Like why gauss is used for sunspots, with field strengths comparable to a rare earth magnet (imagining the force that could be exerted by a supermagnet a kilometer in diameter is good for perspective), yet the larger tesla unit is used for the weaker fields in the heliosphere, normally as nano-teslas.
But at least I can now follow these conversations better.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 8, 2012 at 12:31 pm
Like why gauss is used for sunspots
some people still measure distances in miles, temperatures in Fahrenheit, and weight in stones. Not all solar magnetism is measured in Gauss. Some solar papers use modern units [like Tesla], e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/The%20Strength%20of%20the%20Sun's%20Polar%20Fields.pdf and http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
Jan P Perlwitz says:
The curves you see in the graphic are low-pass filtered model output. It is not scientifically sound to compare low-pass filtered model output, where short-term unforced variability on interannual time scales has been largely removed, with unfiltered data from observations that have all the short-term unforced variability present.
Those graphics have error bands on them. Any “short-term unforced variability” that has been removed from the main trace should be added to the error bands. If it is, then the comparison is valid. If it isn’t, then you guys are hiding uncertainty. You guys wouldn’t do something like that, would you?
Sorry, that’s another question, isnt it? I forgot, you don’t answer questions . Like these:
How long can global average surface temps remain flat before you admit your theory is bust?
Is the ~25 year period that you have stipulated sufficient for that, or not? If not, please revise your previous answer.
How long would they have to rise at less than the 0.2C/decade rate predicted by the low end of your scenarios before you will accept that you are wrong?
How much can they drop, before you will come to that conclusion?
These are not difficult questions, for someone who makes claims …