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
Leif Svalgaard (15:08:30) :
““The solar polar fields are important in supplying most of the heliospheric magnetic flux during solar minimum conditions. With weaker polar fields, the interplanetary magnetic fields that the Ulysses space probe will measure during its next polar passes in 2007–2008 are therefore expected to be significantly lower than during the 1994–1995 polar passes.”
This has now come to pass [no pun intended].”
Agreed.
The most compelling feature, in my opinion, of the Dikpati de Toma, Gilman “flux-transport dynamo” model, is its remarkable replication of the peak sunspot numbers from cycles 16 through 23.
Now the bar may be set higher.
Can their model produce the weak IMF and weak solar wind Ulysses observed?
Leif: I am grateful for the explanations and patience.
About oceans … I am awaiting a marine scientist responsible … the same way that Dr Leif is a competent solar scientist.
Anthony,
OT, but have you seen the reply from Pfeffer et al to Real Climates critique of their paper on sea level rise? They are not happy, but Gavin’s response is “fair enough” and then to complain about them rocking the climate change boat.
As you say we are living in interesting times
John-X (15:22:21) :
The most compelling feature, in my opinion, of the Dikpati de Toma, Gilman “flux-transport dynamo” model, is its remarkable replication of the peak sunspot numbers from cycles 16 through 23.
I was a referee on their paper. You may enjoy my report: http://www.leif.org/research/Dikpati%20Referee%20Report.pdf
Since they only predict the height of the cycle [not its shape] they are only predicting 8 numbers. That is a very low number of degrees of freedom. The shape of the cycle on their graph is just the average observed shape, but gives the visual [and misleading] impression that they are doing a fantastic job.
Here is a similar prediction which is almost as good:
http://www.leif.org/research/Grow-N-Crash%20Prediction%20Model.pdf
Ain’t nothin’ compelling here [nor in theirs].
Can their model produce the weak IMF and weak solar wind Ulysses observed?
No, as it is not built to do that.
OOOOPS! We meant cooler, didn’t we mention cooler?? I’m sure we did, “It’s going to get cooler.
Love NASA
Hi Leif,
Could you please answer this question for me?
UV doubles from solar maximum to solar minimum. UV reacts with oxygen and forms ozone. When electromagnetic radiation peaks at solar maximum, ozone levels rise about 3% in the stratosphere.
In the late 70’s, NASA placed a satellite over Antarctica and found a hole in the ozone layer. The hole increased during the winter season in the Southern Hemisphere. We blamed and banded CFC’s.
With the sudden decrease in solar activity over the last 400 days and with the winter season coming to an end in the Southern Hemisphere, does NASA satellites show an increase in the hole in the ozone layer? And, if so, does that help acquit CFC’s, or are they still guilty of destroying the Ozone layer?
Thanks for your time,
Jeff Wiita
As Dr. Svalgaard celebrates his no-doubt correct prediction regarding a quiet Solar Cycle 24, perhaps he’ll enjoy an afternoon of sledding on Stanford or Berkeley campus 🙂
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It seems that Leif and NASA are operating on the absence of evidence as if it were the equivalent of evidence of absence. Clearly a logical error, but one that most scientist commit from time to time.
“We have no studies to indicate that . . . .” “I know of no evidence that . . . .” and so on. Using an absence of evidence to imply the evidence of absence. Science has a way to go to grow out of moronic ignorance.
Leif said:
“If the Sun is the major driver of our climate, the climate should also be back to what it was a hundred years ago. I don’t think it is.
[and don’t tell me about long delays and at the same tell me that the last few months cooling is due to the Sun]. Talk to me about the oceans instead, and their internal oscillations.”
Are you saying the oceans are like a giant solar cell? An oversimplification I know.
hyonmin (14:25:11) :
And joining Greenpeace. 🙂
Hmm, I wonder if he’s a member already.
looks like David Archibald was spot on after all….
If the end is at hand, I would suggest buying this CD for your final moments. It is a Mass written for the year 1000 AD. It is sung by a group of four sopranos and listening to them is to hear the angles sing!
Since the world didn’t come to an end in the year 1000 or even the year Y2K, I suggest we recycle the music for the next apocalypse.
1000: A Mass for the End of Time / Anonymous 4
http://www.amazon.com/1000-Mass-End-Time-4/dp/B00004UFGW/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1221865859&sr=1-7
Steamboat Jack
Leif,
Isn’t the solar flux at or close to the theoretical minimum for the last few months tho? If so has it reached the edge of the heliosphere where the influence on GCR would start to be felt?
Angels not angles!
hey, I’m an engineer. What do you expect!
Steamboat Jack
Hi folks!
Good discussion – but here is the point I think we all are going for:
To stop the crazed rush to “fix the climate”. Why? Well, because there is nothing proven yet – (please don’t kill me) It could be that even though we think, postulate, and yes, believe that CO2 is not a climate driver, there could be information we (and certainly the AGW crowd) don’t have.
Lief is unconvinced the sun drives the climate
Pielke and son are concerned that land use is a big driver
Anthony is looking at (among other things) the ability to collect data from land based stations. (And holding his cards close to his vest other than questioning AGW.)
Those are the majors here and there are many others who cause me to pause and think about my conclusions. I think a skeptic is best defined as someone who looks at the data, makes a somewhat informed decision and then is willing to modify that decision as the data directs.
Ice age from a cooling sun? Maybe
Ditto from sea current directions? Possible
Mankind causing heating due to land use? Plausable
Warming from CO2? Seems backwards but stranger things have happened.
Remember the person who has a mind like a steel trap – rusted shut!
What interesting times we live in.
Thanks all
Mike
Old Man Winter (15:50:43) :
As Dr. Svalgaard celebrates his no-doubt correct prediction regarding a quiet Solar Cycle 24, perhaps he’ll enjoy an afternoon of sledding on Stanford or Berkeley campus 🙂
Except that I’m not predicting anything about temperatures. As far as sledding is concerned, Stanford is flat as a pancake, but Berkeley would be a real treat.
Jeff Wiita (15:47:18) :
With the sudden decrease in solar activity over the last 400 days and with the winter season coming to an end in the Southern Hemisphere, does NASA satellites show an increase in the hole in the ozone layer? And, if so, does that help acquit CFC’s, or are they still guilty of destroying the Ozone layer?
You can see for yourself here:
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.html
The current ozone hole is as big as ever [maybe even the biggest ever] but has not grown very much, as you can see yourself by checking the page, so perhaps the CFC ban is helping a bit.
vincent (16:10:35) :
looks like David Archibald was spot on after all….
He’ll undoubtedly claim so, except that his prediction of a low cycle 24 is not unique [many others predict that, including me] and his prediction of 3 degree drop in temperature is off the wall [based on extrapolation of trends for some stations in New Hampshire].
Richard deSousa (16:03:00) :
Are you saying the oceans are like a giant solar cell? An oversimplification I know.
but not a bad one. perhaps one should liken the oceans to a large battery charged by solar power.
Alice Finkel (15:53:28) :
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It seems that Leif and NASA are operating on the absence of evidence as if it were the equivalent of evidence of absence. Clearly a logical error, but one that most scientist commit from time to time.
It pains me a bit to be thrown in with NASA, but which “absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence” are you referring to related to me? Also, I think that you misunderstand the ‘moronic’ scientific jargon. When a scientist says “we have no evidence” she means that she has looked and there was nothing. It is like looking in a closet and seeing no gorilla in there, she would then say “we have no evidence for a gorilla in the closet”.
The earth’s magnetic field has decreased by about 10% in the last 100 years and the rate seems to be accelerating slightly.
If cosmic rays do affect climate, will this decline have any impact on future climate?
And if there are three solar cycles in each phase of the PDO there only needs to be an alternating difference in solar cycles to explain a PDO with an alternating cooling and warming phase. And the battery charger that does alternate solar cycles? Why, it’s an alternation of the shape of the peak of cosmic rays from one solar cycle to the next. An elegant formulation which only suffers from the lack of a precise mechanism, as Leif has pointed out to me repeatedly.
==============================================
Bill Marsh (16:21:59) :
Isn’t the solar flux at or close to the theoretical minimum for the last few months tho? If so has it reached the edge of the heliosphere where the influence on GCR would start to be felt?
It is not quite clear what you mean. In usual parlance, the ‘solar flux’ is the F10.7 radio flux and that is at the bottom right now.
But since it is electromagnetic radiation moving at the speed of light [it light] it reaches the edge in 75 hours and do nothing to the matter there so has no influence on GCRs.
If on the other hand you were thinking about the solar wind, its ‘theoretical’ minimum speed in 258 km/second and the wind right now is moving at close to 400 km/second, so it is not a rock-bottom. And it is not the wind speed that is important for the GCRs, but the fact that the sun is rotating and emitting solar wind at different speeds in the same direction causing fast wind to bump into slow wind and creating a region of compressed magnetic fields. It is those compressed fields that deflect away the cosmic rays. In a very real and correct sense, the cosmic ray modulation is caused by solar rotation. If the Sun were not rotating, the cosmic rays would show a much smaller solar cycle modulation, caused by coronal mass ejections.
Michael J. Bentley (16:36:52) :
I think a skeptic is best defined as someone who looks at the data, makes a somewhat informed decision and then is willing to modify that decision as the data directs.
No, that’s called a scientist. A skeptic In ordinary usage [from good ole Wikipedia] practices “skepticism (Greek: ‘σκέπτομαι’ skeptomai, to look about, to consider) refers to (a) an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object; (b) the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain”.
Quite different from what you describe. Your position is not that of a skeptic, but simply that of a reasonable person.
Leif,
How could the earth still have a degree to cool down. The total warming was never more than 0.7C to begin. Almost all of which has been lost in the last 10 years.
MarkW (16:54:53) :
The earth’s magnetic field has decreased by about 10% in the last 100 years and the rate seems to be accelerating slightly.
If cosmic rays do affect climate, will this decline have any impact on future climate?
A weaker magnetic field of the Earth means a higher cosmic ray flux at the surface. 2000 years ago, the Earth’s field was twice as strong. When reconstructing solar activity from cosmic rays that decrease since then is taken into account and compensated for, so ‘solar activity’ is not the only thing that determines the cosmic ray flux in the Earth’s atmosphere. If you assume that cosmic rays work to cool the Earth [through clouds or whatever], then an increased GCR flux might cool the Earth by cutting down on cloud formation. This is, however, just wild speculation.
For sunspot numbers, start with http://www.spaceweather.com, and follow the links from there.
kim (16:57:45) :
An elegant formulation which only suffers from the lack of a precise mechanism, as Leif has pointed out to me repeatedly.
So I don’t need to do it again. I would even leave out the word ‘precise’ or replace it with ‘any’.