This is unusual. A live media teleconference on the sun. Even more unusual is this statement:
The sun’s current state could result in changing conditions in the solar system.
As you may recall, I posted an entry about the Ulysses mission back on June 16th and the findings of a lowered magnetic field in the sun, from the JPL press release then:
Ulysses ends its career after revealing that the magnetic field emanating from the sun’s poles is much weaker than previously observed. This could mean the upcoming solar maximum period will be less intense than in recent history.
We live in interesting times.
Dwayne Brown
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1726
DC Agle
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
818-393-9011
MEDIA ADVISORY : M08-176
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/sep/HQ_M08176_Ulysses_teleconference.html
NASA To Discuss Conditions On And Surrounding The Sun
WASHINGTON — NASA will hold a media teleconference Tuesday, Sept. 23, at 12:30 p.m. EDT, to discuss data from the joint NASA and European Space Agency Ulysses mission that reveals the sun’s solar wind is at a 50-year low. The sun’s current state could result in changing conditions in the solar system.
Ulysses was the first mission to survey the space environment above and below the poles of the sun. The reams of data Ulysses returned have changed forever the way scientists view our star and its effects. The venerable spacecraft has lasted more than 17 years – almost four times its expected mission lifetime.
The panelists are:
— Ed Smith, NASA Ulysses project scientist and magnetic field instrument investigator, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
— Dave McComas, Ulysses solar wind instrument principal investigator, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio
— Karine Issautier, Ulysses radio wave lead investigator, Observatoire de Paris, Meudon, France
— Nancy Crooker, Research Professor, Boston University, Boston, Mass.
Reporters should call 866-617-1526 and use the pass code “sun” to participate in the teleconference. International media should call 1-210-795-0624.
To access visuals that will the accompany presentations, go to:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/ulysses-20080923.html
Audio of the teleconference will be streamed live at:
– end –
h/t to John Sumpton
[…] count, it took off like a rocket. Initially I had attributed the increase to having the NASA “press conference on the state of the sun” story posted on Glenn Reynolds “Instapundit” which is known to make huge traffic […]
Another paper, from Lockwood 1999 concerning solar increase:
From this correlation, we show that the 131% rise in the mean coronal source field over the interval 1901-1995 corresponds to a rise in the average total solar irradiance of D I = 1.65 ± 0.23 Wm-2.
http://www.ukssdc.ac.uk/wdcc1/papers/grl.html
Again, 1.5 w/m2 is what is claimed of CO2 forcing in the last century. Seems that figure is more than insignificant or immeasurable.
Glenn (14:24:42) :
Another paper, from Lockwood 1999 concerning solar increase
You just don’t get it, or you make no effort to even try. The Lockwood TSI work was based on his 1999 open flux paper, which everybody today agrees is flawed. Even Lockwood’s group [Alexis Roulliard et al.] agrees that the doubling of the flux did not happen. The Lockwood 1999 paper is totally debunked by now. See: Reply to the comment by M. Lockwood et al…that has references to other papers showing that the aa-index is flawed. Since you don’t read anything I’ll post here our conclusion with the references:
“In fact, it has given us the opportunity to raise a serious question about their methodology, specifically, their use of the Sargent recurrence index to reconstruct solar wind speed (combined with an error in the calibration of the aa index prior to 1957 [Arge, C. N., E. Hildner, V. J. Pizzo, and J. W. Harvey (2002), Two solar cycles of non-increasing magnetic flux, J. Geophys. Res., 07(A10), 1319, doi:10.1029/2001JA000503; Svalgaard, L., E. W. Cliver, and P. Le Sager (2004), IHV: A new long-term geomagnetic index, Adv. Space Res., 34(2), 436; Jarvis, M. (2005), Observed tidal variation in the lower thermosphere through the 20th century and the possible implication of ozone depletion, J. Geophys. Res., 110, A04303, doi:10.1029/2004JA010921; M. Lockwood et al., The long-term drift in geomagnetic activity: calibration of the aa index using data from a variety of magnetometer stations, submitted to Annales Geophysicae, 2006; L. Svalgaard and E. W. Cliver, Longterm variation of geomagnetic activity (the IHV-index) and its use in deriving solar wind speed since 1882, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, A10111, doi:10.1029/2007JA012437, 2007], Mursula, K., and D. Martini (2006), Centennial increase in geomagnetic activity: Latitudinal differences and global estimates, J. Geophys. Res., 111, A08209, doi:10.1029/2005JA011549; Mursula, K., D. Martini, and A. Karinen (2004), Did open solar magnetic field increase during the last 100 years: A reanalysis of geomagnetic activity, Sol. Phys., 224, 85;), which, in our opinion, is the likely cause of the major increase in the inferred coronal field that LSW99 report, but which we cannot confirm.”
Here is a recent (2008) paper by Claus Froehlich on TSI and the open flux. Note his acknowledgment of discussions with Lockwood and me. Claus is still struggling with trying to understand why his PMOD data shows a decline this minimum which is spurious [compared to SORCE]: http://www.leif.org/research/Forum-Frohlich_cf.ppt or the pdf version: http://www.leif.org/research/Froehlich-Sofia-2008.pdf
Note in particular slide 14 that shows the good agreement between Lockwood [Rouillard] [red curve] and us [green curve]. Compare where the green curve was in 1900 and where it is now.
So, once more, the 1999 Lockwood papers have been superseded and all papers based on it are suspect [e.g. Solanki etc].
Come on, you should be able to see this and move on, participate in science in the making, rather than hunting obsolete papers on the Internet.
Reply: Links fixed per request ~ charles the moderator
Its a very interesting for me, as a journalist and scientist. J have a some newspaper articels by the problems of our Space and other variouse the problems of NASA . If you want, you can see their full texts in my blog “nikotew.wordpress.com” – in “Recent posts” (Air, Space and Ciberspace…)
About the my little mistake:
The name of the my blog is “nikotev.wordpress.com”. Thank you!
I do get what you are saying, Leif. Yet you can’t seem to even get your URLs to post properly. And you reference your own claims to this “debunking”? I did the same with another researcher yesterday who claimed in a response to a paper critical of his work that he had debunked the claims. Frankly, I don’t know if this is “science in the making” or whether the prevailing understanding from years of observation and research will prevail, despite your claims. You seem to think you have some new information that would cause most of the world’s literature in this respect on it’s ear, and all in the last few months. Give it a break, and slack off some. Try to convince if you will, but don’t expect to win my approval or understanding when you continually insult me. And I suggest that when you claim things like “here is the paper by such and such” that you produce the URL to the paper, not to your website.
Glenn (15:49:15) :
Yet you can’t seem to even get your URLs to post properly.
And this comment is not called for. Now, who is insulting whom here?
And I suggest that when you claim things like “here is the paper by such and such” that you produce the URL to the paper, not to your website.
I often get the paper from the authors and collect them on my website so that you do not have to pay $9-$35 to read them.
Did you read the Froehlich paper I referred to to? And why not?
You seem to think you have some new information that would cause most of the world’s literature in this respect on it’s ear, and all in the last few months
Indeed yes, except not in the last few months. This is the result of years of work. You are correct that acceptance of my work is recent, but that is just because it takes time for even a breakthrough to percolate through the literature. But we are getting there.
“everybody today agrees is flawed. Even Lockwood’s group [Alexis Roulliard et al.] agrees that the doubling of the flux did not happen.”
Then simply provide working URLs to papers from these people, including Lockwood, with a relevant quote or two.
As far as my “hunting obsolete papers”, I’ve already provided URLs and quote to Lockwood’s 2008 papers. You may have found some exotic lifeform stirring up the Sun, but the correlation between solar activity and temperature is well recognized and strong, and I have not seen a *single thing* from you that “refutes” that.
“But we are getting there.”
Some change from “everybody today agrees is flawed”, don’t you think?
By the way, doesn’t Lockwood have something in press concerning the IHV-index?
From Leif’s refereed paper on Dikpati:
Soo, Cycle 20 was “even more so” not particularly peculiar? The sentence structure doesn’t convey what you intended, I think that Cycle 20 was more peculiar than 23, but the exact opposite.
Glenn (16:14:23) :
Then simply provide working URLs to papers from these people, including Lockwood, with a relevant quote or two.
I gave you a lot of references to ‘everybody’. Most of these don’t have URLs but you have to go and find them in the Journals. A good place to find the papers is http://adswww.harvard.edu/
Anyway, here is one URL that I have handy:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JA012130.shtml
Centennial changes in the solar wind speed and in the open solar flux, Rouillard, A. P.; Lockwood, M.; Finch, I.
Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue A5, CiteID A05103, 05/2007, DOI: 10.1029/2006JA012130
Abstract
We use combinations of geomagnetic indices, based on both variation range and hourly means, to derive the solar wind flow speed, the interplanetary magnetic field strength at 1 AU and the total open solar flux between 1895 and the present. We analyze the effects of the regression procedure and geomagnetic indices used by adopting four analysis methods. These give a mean interplanetary magnetic field strength increase of 45.1 +/- 4.5% between 1903 and 1956, associated with a 14.4 +/- 0.7% rise in the solar wind speed. We use averaging timescales of 1 and 2 days to allow for the difference between the magnetic fluxes threading the coronal source surface and the heliocentric sphere at 1 AU. The largest uncertainties originate from the choice of regression procedure: the average of all eight estimates of the rise in open solar flux is 73.0 +/- 5.0%, but the best procedure, giving the narrowest and most symmetric distribution of fit residuals, yields 87.3 +/- 3.9%.
You will note two important details. First the remaining ‘rise’ is now from 1903 to 1956, not the ‘last 100 years anymore’ and as NASA will reveal on Tuesday, the solar wind has come down again. Our work shows the same thing: a low state in the beginning of the 20th century, a rise with the sunspot numbers up to the middle of the century, then a decline [with a few ups and downs on its way] towards now where we are just back to where we started. Second, the value of 1901 in the paper is way wrong [like only half of what it should be – due to a clerical error – Alexis Rouillard, personal communication to me and Froehlich; you will note that that data point is missing on slide 14 in Froehlich’s paper] and drives the early century values down below the correct value enhancing any rise. Further you will notice that Lockwood has abandoned his old method and adopted a variation on our method instead.
The point I’m trying to get across is that NASA is so proud that Ulysses has shown a long-term change in the solar wind derived from more than four cycles worth of data. Our work extends that to 15 cycles. This is indeed something that is causing a serious rethinking of the long-term solar wind behavior.
As far as my “hunting obsolete papers”, I’ve already provided URLs and quote to Lockwood’s 2008 papers.
If you would care to read that paper you would note that the open flux he shows is still the old 1999 flux. Note the flux calculated in the above paper.
Glenn,
Drop the cheap shots. Leif knows his stuff about the Sun. If he points out a factual error in your chain of belief, then adjust. He himself doesn’t understand what causes “warming or cooling”, or whether there is indeed any over the past few decades, just like the rest of us. I favour the Sun hypothesis, but don’t have a proven mechanism .
On another tack, to clarify the quiestion of argument:
The planet can “warm” due to two possible mechanisms:
1. The Sun’s energy input (insolation) increases.
2. More of the Sun’s ebnergy is trapped at the surface (insulation).
Either way, wouldn’t the tropopause increase in height? Would the height increase be different if it were due to insolatioan rather than insulation?
edcon (10:17:54) :
“May be we don’t have the “branes” yet!”
I’m sorry, but that is an awful pun, the moderators should be embarrassed if they don’t realize that. You should be rather pleased with yourself.
Here’s a 2004 paper, during a time of your years of work on the subject:
Solar Physics (2004) 224: 85–94
DID OPEN SOLAR MAGNETIC FIELD INCREASE DURING THE LAST100 YEARS? A REANALYSIS OF GEOMAGNETIC ACTIVITY
K. MURSULA, D. MARTINI and A. KARINEN
“This exceptionally weak increase of local geomagneticactivity at CLH/FRD made Svalgaard, Cliver, and Le Sager (2004) to erroneouslydoubt the increase of global geomagnetic activity during the last 100 years. Although we find that there is no doubt that global geomagnetic activity has increased during the last 100 years, the exact amount of this increase is not completely unambiguous. The corresponding relative increase in the aa index is 65%..”
You can claim that “doubling of the flux” was wrong, but this doesn’t disprove that solar activity has increased in the last 100 years. This is what you need to show has not happened, since that is our disagreement.
If you wish to link your claim of the flux not doubling to solar activity not increasing in the last hundred years, then you have to do that, not just say that Lockwood was wrong.
A paper isn’t always completely wrong about everything in it when one thing in it might be wrong.
there is only theory when it comes to sunspot activiity….nothing is proved. to me its not rocket science, plain and simple every time neptune, uranus and jupitor line up and saturn is apposing we have a cooling and less sunspot activity. check it out for yourself using this tool.
http://math-ed.com/Resources/GIS/Geometry_In_Space/java1/Temp/TLVisPOrbit.html
Well, well, well. it has become very cloudy over the past two years here in Ottawa, Canada, leading to the cold summer of 2007, big long winter of 2007-2008 and poor summer of 2008. This period is characterized, locally, by large amounts of cloud cover and low temperatures (my subjective perception).
I don’t know how to post a gif here, so go to http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/ and set start date to jan 1 2006 and end dat september 1 2008, with a 1 month resolution.
Perhaps Svenmark’s theory has legs.
Ninderthana (04:54:41) :
My problem with barycenters is 1) they are a mathematical convenience developed for particular situations, and 2) anything that can’t be modeled as a point is likely not appropriate to model with barycenters. Given the extensive discussion about barycenters and tides recently, I’m not ready for more discussion.
When you first brought up the spin coupling idea I thought of Larry Niven’s “Neutron Star,” where a spaceship (long, skinny type) makes a close flyby to a neutron star. During the approach, the spaceship got into a tidal lock with the star and was released during the retreat. Niven heard after publication that the ship would have started a spin at the fly by that would not have stopped on the way out.
It seems to me that if you made some simple structures and modeled them as an N-body problem you ought to be able to get some decent results. Yeah, it’s rocket science, but it’s not climate science. Oh wait – it is climate science. 🙂
I can wait – it beats waiting for geology to happen! Confirmation of predictions, even derived from statistical data can be good science. It’s about the same to me as the prediction that sunspots may fade from view around 2015, except that the related events can be unambiguously observed. (Reduced magnetic field -> more convection -> warmer plasma -> reduced contrast.)
For those interested in another of Leif’s references, here is a URL to the paper:
K. Mursula and D. Martini 2006
“Centennial increase in geomagnetic activity: Latitudinal differences and global estimates”
http://spaceweb.oulu.fi/~kalevi/publications/Mursula_Martini_JGR_2006.pdf
Nothing there steps out and says “Lockwood was wrong, Leif was right and solar activity hasn’t increased in the last century”.
Leif: WRT to oceanic thermomagnetism, I always seem to pick the long shots, eh? Now, here’s an imponderable: Do the Earth’s seas wobble around a gravitational center? The extra friction you see …. 😉 Does the Journal of Irreproducible Results take papers from laypeople?
Kim, That’s good to know but I doubt I would ever go back to dot Earth. My capacity for patience is finite in addressing certain environmentalist tropes.
Lief
Thanks for the link to Mars Dust Storms melting their south ice cap. Like you, I don’t think the sun is the major climate driver, but I do believe the sun plays a roll.
According to NASA http://science.nas.gov/headlines/y2003/09jul_marsdust.htm
“All dust storms on Mars, no matter what size, are powered by sunshine. Solar heating warms the martian atmosphere and causes the air to move, lifting dust off the ground.”
There are alway dust storms on mars. Even, I bet, when the south cap gains ice.
So the sun does contribute to Mars’ climate
I’m looking for an update to find out is the south ice cap is still melting.
Glenn (18:02:55) :
K. Mursula and D. Martini 2006
“Centennial increase in geomagnetic activity: Latitudinal differences and global estimates”
Nothing there steps out and says “Lockwood was wrong, Leif was right and solar activity hasn’t increased in the last century”.
If you actually read the paper carefully you’ll see this disclaimer in the 2006 paper:
“We will use here data mostly from the same stations
as were used by Mursula et al. [2004]. However, we will
omit the Eskdalemuir (ESK) station in the present study,
since the data of this station depict problems that have not
yet been fully quantified (see later discussion).
Remember this is science in the making and everybody makes mistakes. The 2004 Mursula paper was largely based on Eskdalemuir which had smoothed their data before 1932 thus leading to a much larger increase in activity after 1932. In the 2006 paper they acknowledge [because I told them at an AGU meeting that ESK was suspect] that they had over estimated the ‘rise’. The 2006 paper still has some teething problems, namely the use of high latitude stations which have no role in a mid-latitude index. Eventually people figure out what works and their ‘conversion’ is a slow process. The most authoritative account is that of Froehlich http://www.leif.org/research/Forum-Frohlich_cf.ppt [I have it on my website for your convenience. Go to slide 14 and tell us what you see. Describe the figure in your own words. Cite the [small amount of] text. Once you have done that, we’ll discuss the Figure. Remember that Froehlich is one of the foremost TSI researchers in the World, and remember that his paper is the result of discussions between him, Mike Lockwood and myself. It can’t get more ‘official’ or timely [as the paper is only a few months old] or authoritatively than that. This is the state-of-the-art as far as TSI variations are concerned.
So, please do us all a favor [and yourself, too]. Go read [nay, study] the paper and tell us what you see on slide 14.
old construction worker (18:33:42) :
So the sun does contribute to Mars’ climate
As it does to the Earth’s. [no sun -> etc]. The issue is if the tiny variations of the Sun’s output make a significant difference in our climate.
leebert (18:08:32) :
Do the Earth’s seas wobble around a gravitational center?
go sit at the seaside for a few years and see if you observe such a wobble. You will see tides, but the tide you see is caused by the Moon attracting the Earth less than the sea where you are sitting.
[…] is upon us, the Sun is about to go out and all manner of speculation in between. Now, courtesy of Watt’s Up With That, a bit of […]