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
Glenn (21:26:02) :
Nah, I’m not an AGWer.
I think we can see your bias shine through. Too bad for you. Over and out.
[…] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/19/news-nasa-to-hold-press-conference-on-the-state-of-the-sun/ […]
“So this is what you have to do. Anything else has no value.”
I have nothing to gain by impersonating a ‘scientist’. My help may be of no use to you, but is extended in the manner most likely to leak thru, if at all.
Gary Gulrud (07:42:40) :
I have nothing to gain by impersonating a ’scientist’.
Not impersonating one, acting as one, applying the gift of reason.
Nah, I’m not an AGWer.
“I think we can see your bias shine through. Too bad for you. Over and out.”
Bad for me because you imagine yourself the Queen (we) and that you think you can see something? Over and out is about right, Leif.
If there is any bias here, it is your insistence that your recent propositions should overthrow many observations and assumptions from way back to the present day, and your refusal to even acknowledge the fact of accepted knowledge concerning the link between solar activity and temperature.
Although it would not matter to me, I really doubt that your subjects will accept your pronouncements so easily.
Glenn (09:35:45) :
to even acknowledge the fact of accepted knowledge concerning the link between solar activity and temperature.
It is claimed that thousands of scientists and most governments do not accept this as a fact [to wit: its absence from this press conference], so this looks to me like the second of these two quotes: “here are the facts upon which I base my opinion” or “here is my opinion upon which I base my facts”.
to even acknowledge the fact of accepted knowledge concerning the link between solar activity and temperature.
“It is claimed that thousands of scientists and most governments do not accept this as a fact [to wit: its absence from this press conference],
You must be joking.
“so this looks to me like the second of these two quotes: “here are the facts upon which I base my opinion” or “here is my opinion upon which I base my facts”.”
It might look that way, especially if you intentionally leave out “many observations and assumptions from way back to the present day”, which you did leave out.
Glenn (13:36:19) :
to even acknowledge the fact of accepted knowledge concerning the link between solar activity and temperature.
“It is claimed that thousands of scientists and most governments do not accept this as a fact [to wit: its absence from this press conference],
You must be joking.
Not at all. Do Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, Caspar Amman, James Hansen, etc and GISS, NASA, etc acknowledge the fact of accepted knowledge concerning the link between solar activity and temperature?
Leif,
Sorry, I forgot about the SC19 period. I know we’ve discussed this before, but I’m on the road & it’s been a busman’s holiday thus far. The scenery’s been fantastic & my mind’s been miles away from this great ongoing & historic controversy.
Well, what remains as the brief for facular UV influence I suppose becomes rather weak, or only as a minor cofactor or noise artifact. As I said, I really don’t have a horse in this race, but the interest in facular UV made for an interesting footnote.
It’s been quoted of NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth that 80% – 90% of global warming would reside in the seas with latent heat being “in the pipeline.” The nightmare AGW scenarios have included a 50 year latent “heat bucket” effect from the seas & so on. Well recent studies show that the seas don’t appear to be warming or rising at a dangerous pace, neither Greenland nor Antarctica are posed to swamp the coasts of the world. The brief for dangerous ocean latent heat content seems to be weakening. I don’t know why the alarmists don’t greet the steady pace of good news that shows we aren’t on the verge of a precipice — it’s as though they want the nightmare conundrum.
As for GHG, I’m aware the extra CO2 we’re feeding plants might help offset other woes we as a species seem intent upon inflicting upon our physical habitat for the time being, and if GHG influences really are far more moderate then we might as well accept that every cloud has a silver lining or vice versa, every silver lining has a cloud.
This is absolutely silly nonsense. Everyone acknowledges the fact of solar forcing, which is a correlation between solar activity and temperature. The IPCC in 2007 halved it’s earlier estimate of solar forcing but still acknowledges solar forcing as a reality and a real contribution to climate change. I’ve produced many references that corroborate that fact. It simply can not be honestly denied.
Interesting 2008 paper on TSI linkage to Climate change here:
http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_Climate_Change.html
“Not impersonating one, acting as one, applying the gift of reason.”
Leif, your description of the review process is a practice required for publication in professional journals. A practice originating in self-interest, maintaining their publication’s standard with subscribers in an economic market.
The implication that that is how ‘science’ is ‘rightly’ pursued is amusing and quaint. Why else would you be blogging (or commenting) so furiously but to drum up comity among the unwashed.
Gary Gulrud (10:00:29) :
your description of the review process is a practice required for publication in professional journals. A practice originating in self-interest, maintaining their publication’s standard with subscribers in an economic market.
As a practicing scientist publishing papers in and often being a reviewer for professional journals I can tell you that such practice is required for general acceptance by other scientists [and funding agencies, and even for just getting a job], so, although there always is some economic interest, that aspect is insignificant. It may be amusing or quaint to you, but it is the hard reality for practicing scientists. I started blogging [at Tamino’s of all places, until I was banned for not being enough hard-core AGW fan and for [as you probably would sympathize with] being ‘foolish’, ‘dogmatic’, ‘primadonna’, etc], then at ClimateAudit] because I wanted to know if somebody could help me understand why if the Sun hardly varied , the climate would nevertheless vary, as this was a puzzle to me. What would cause such hypersensitivity? Needless to say, I didn’t get an answer at Tamino’s, nor at CA, and, sadly, not here either, because it seems that people are less interested in the science than in the politics, or don’t know enough to make a meaningful contribution, and are often just polemic types flinging abuse. So, after 6000 posts, I’m not any closer. On this journey, people have asked me questions about the Sun [of which I know a lot] and the climate [of which I know less], and I feel it is sort of a duty to do ‘outreach’ to the unwashed masses. I have always done that. If somebody wanted to knpw something and I coulb of any help, I feel that one should oblige. Don’t you.
The implication that that is how ’science’ is ‘rightly’ pursued
is indeed correct and a fact. There is no other way. Before we had the modern peer-review system, a paper would often first be read by a distinguished elderly scientist in the field or presented at and read at a meeting of the scientific society [and there be ‘flogged’ and discussed]. If the paper survived this process, the editor would go on with publication. Nothing has really changed, except the process has become a bit more formal, as is necessary on account of the volume of scientific publications.
So, I’m in earnest awaiting your reviews.
Glenn:
There is solar forcing, I don’t think anyone is trying to exclude solar factors. The question is how much TSI varies over the long term, whether direct TSI is the causative factor, or perhaps it’s the somewhat more indirect effect of the sun’s magnetic output which does vary more than TSI.
IOW, TSI may vary, but may vary only within a smaller range and hence be a less causative effect, whereas the magnetic output may vary far more and be the actual centennial-range factor.
i am still not convinced the TSI is only ranging in small amounts yet…Leif has a study but it would be nice to see it backed up more, but as Glenn says it may not be all about TSI.
Lief has predicted a low C24 number going against the Top dogs and is perhaps more inline with the pseudo scientist’s predictions. Its easier to predict now of course but wonder what Lief thinks is driving this slow down?
Leif, you have been and continue to be a very fine teacher.
I reiterate (relying on instinct-not intellect) my counsel re: the revision of historic SS numbers, a collaborative effort with one sophisticated in functional analysis and epistemology. We can already see a threat looming with 24 that the “very strong” correlation (which must by needs be raw data) will fail to hold.
Gary Gulrud (09:00:45) :
I reiterate (relying on instinct-not intellect) my counsel re: the revision of historic SS numbers, a collaborative effort with one sophisticated in functional analysis and epistemology.
I do consider myself having sufficient sophistication in these areas. The issues are not of sophistication but of data collection and simple analysis.
My attitude is that is simplicity beats sophistication every time. Also, a result is more apt to be accepted if it readily understood without needed sophisticated methods to tease it out of the noise.
We can already see a threat looming with 24 that the “very strong” correlation (which must by needs be raw data) will fail to hold.
I’m not sure what you mean. If it is what I think it is, that correlation died in 1975 or so.
nobwainer (04:28:32) :
Leif has predicted a low C24 number going against the Top dogs and is perhaps more inline with the pseudo scientist’s predictions. Its easier to predict now of course but wonder what Leif thinks is driving this slow down?
I think I am one of the ‘top dogs’ 🙂 The method is spelled out in http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
Thanks Leif….wasn’t meaning to take anything away from you, Harkaway and Dikpati just tend to be more in the media spotlight as far as predictions go.
In your paper you talk about the solar dynamo and measuring the polar fields on the downside after maximum to predict the next cycle and how there is a limited understanding of what drives this dynamo. My question was more aimed at do you have a pet theory for what causes the dynamo to go through periods of high and low though the centuries?
[…] reported on the unusual absence of sunspots. This has now been going on for rather a long time and this report on “Watts up With That” talks of a press conference by NASA on the […]
[deleted]
I’ve blocked this several times. This Russian text has no relevance here. Stop posting it.
Moderators delete future attempts please. – Anthony
nikolay kotev, what about in english?
please explain a little bit, no much knows russian….