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
steven mosher (20:22:18) :
As always I enjoy your sense of humor and your semi infinite patience.
Mosh, haven’t seen you around here, watt brings you to these shores?
“we have no evidence for a gorilla in the closet”.
I’m glad you cleared this up Dr. Svalgaard. Somethings been making an awful racket in there for a few days now… (Turned out to be the cat)
DaveM (20:52:19) :
<i.Somethings been making an awful racket in there for a few days now… (Turned out to be the cat)
The trick of success is to go look.
While all this stuff about the sun is really interesting I tend to agree with the idea that it is the water of this planet that is the main driver of climatic change.
The polar waters loose a great deal of energy every year.It is the water of our polar seas that is the main source of cooling for our oceans.
When 10 million square Km. of sea ice melts it cools off more sea water which sinks below the reach of summers sunlight. When all that water freezes it causes even more cold water to sink. How much? How cold? don’t know. When it comes to ice covered water there is a great deal less of this cooling going on under the protective layer of multi-year ice.
To me, the greater the loss of sea ice area the greater the loss of thermal energy the next winter. Melting first year sea ice is colder than melting multi-year ice. Multi-year sea ice melts about one meter per season while reforming the same amount. First year ice forms and melts about twice this amount. Colder and more of it. Where does all this cold water go? Hydrolic pressure pushing this way and that.
As an aside, surface waters at the equator are still colder close to Equador and the drift is Westward.
[…] Werme on Watts Up With That? comments: “Perhaps they’ll be announcing a solar credit system so operators of solar power […]
Those who claim that because there’s no evidence of their pet theory that it could still be happening. You know, like Astrology, Psychic powers, etc.
If we do have a Maunder-type minimum, will we get a major reduction in temperature?
I was surprised to come across this paper published in 2001 with an explanation that seems to fit the facts. Clearly, according to this, if we do experience a Grand minimum, we will indeed see drops in temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere due to a flipping of the NAO.
Kim
==============================
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17460
…If energy from the Sun decreased only slightly, why did temperatures drop so severely in the Northern Hemisphere? Climate scientist Drew Shindell and colleagues at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies tackled that question by combining temperature records gleaned from tree rings, ice cores, corals, and the few measurements recorded in the historical record, with an advanced computer model of the Earth’s climate. The group first calculated the amount of energy coming from the Sun during the Maunder Minimum and entered the information into a general circulation model…
…The model showed that the drop in temperature was related to ozone in the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere that is between 10 and 50 kilometers from the Earth’s surface. Ozone is created when high-energy ultraviolet light from the Sun interacts with oxygen. During the Maunder Minimum, the Sun emitted less strong ultraviolet light, and so less ozone formed. The decrease in ozone affected planetary waves, the giant wiggles in the jet stream that we are used to seeing on television weather reports.
The change to the planetary waves kicked the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)—the balance between a permanent low-pressure system near Greenland and a permanent high-pressure system to its south—into a negative phase. When the NAO is negative, both pressure systems are relatively weak. Under these conditions, winter storms crossing the Atlantic generally head eastward toward Europe, which experiences a more severe winter…
Sorry I am late everybody. Seems like a rather lively and interesting debate. Having read down it doesn’t seem as if there is much for me to comment on – either because my own questions andthose of others on here seem to have been answered sufficiently or because the topic being discussed or expounded upon is not interesting to me. But I will add this to our discussion.
I have always lived by the mantra that being an ‘expert’ on anything does not ensure that you are always right, it just makes it less likely for you to be wrong. But even so there is still a wide field and as many roads (if not more) lead to failure as to success for even the best minds. Just ask Leif, as one representative of a small patch of what we call science. Also, let us not forget the scientific method has very strict criteria for admitting something into the realm of truth for very good reasons.
When one fights very hard against an opponent, it is easy sometimes and particularly in debates to absorb the tendencies of one’s opponent, especially when that opponent is particularly powerful and influential. Having observed the opposition myself, let me caution us here against three things:
1. The use of ‘common sense’ arguments with that include scientific language to make them sound like the genuine article.
2. Impatience at the ignorance of science.
3. Being unaware that science is perpetually incomplete and has no set pace of achievements.
Explanation: For the first, if we value science, we must uphold the scientific method as the law of the land. The opposition does not do this with anything approaching consistency, despite the many scientists in its ranks. No matter how much sense an argument may make to you, or what you feel you have heard or read from trusted sources, if it has not been through the gauntlet that the scientific method demands then it should be treated with great caution and regarded with a high degree of skepticism. This must even apply to things we hold dear as well, even if we feel the opposition is trying to cover them up to gain some advantage.
Second, because of our desire to know things, it can often be frustrating when we are not certain or just plain do not know. If anything does, science is supposed to give us a form of certainty about our world even while our own science denies the ability to be absolutely sure about anything. It is a scientists job to say honestly when we just do not know. Just because our opposition is in a rush to say that we do know, that the science is settled when it is to their liking. let us not follow them in trying to make the science settled to our own liking. The science is simply not settled one way or the other yet, and it must be allowed to be so for as long as it needs.
Third, we are prone to a pace of what we like to call ‘progress.’ We assume that because we have come thus far technologically that we should be on schedule for learning and solving the mysteries that confront us. We ought to know this by now becomes we do know this now. Even with things we are well familiar with, such as gravity for example, we still have many, many unanswered questions. There is no guarantee we will have them answered, and if we do they will very likely lead to more questions (perhaps the only thing science can guarantee with absolute certainty). There is much that we know but also much more that we think we know that we do not. Recognizing this and making the distinction is one of the paths to wisdom and truth (I mean in the real and practical sense, not in the Zen-like you-should-use-Yellowbook sense).
For most here I do not doubt the motivations are honest and sincere in the attempt to understand and to help in our small part here to circumvent the obvious global-scale political aspirations of our opponents. So it is more with a sense of self-awareness than with anything else that I ask us to act, a self-awareness that realizes our own weaknesses and tendencies first, even while we act with boldness and courage once we ascertain the truth.
Lastly, we will see the measure of these scientists in what they speak about. If they go to things related to their field, yet not directly in its purvue (as no doubt many in the media would like them to) then we shall know their quality (low). If they shy away from this, and avoid the three pitfalls I have outlined above in their explanations to the press and those of us listening in online, then we shall have good reason to think better of them. So listen carefully and judge carefully. No doubt there will be much to discuss.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Anyone in the medical community knows this and that the first encountered pathology may not be all that is happening. However, back in the old, old days, people thought, for example, that the middle ear was the hearing organism. Turns out its the inner ear. That error came about because of the two mistakes mentioned above: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and the first encountered pathology may not be the end game.
While I have every respect (and a great deal of envy) for Leif and others who are up to their arm pits in scientific research, I wonder of the scientific community in the modern age, has come to the conclusion that they have at least been introduced to all there is to know?
Maybe they need to look at things like a mother does when she sends her child back into the bedroom to look for the missing sock with the oft repeated phrase: “look again”. And what a perfect opportunity to do just that with the terribly and magnificently quiet Sun!
Stas, Steven, and Trevor –
Scientific American has long been long on leftish politics and causes, and very anti-nuke, be it power plants or bombs. Circa 1985 when the ABM debate was going on, they published an article by Herbert Lin asserting that an ABM system was unworkable (and a waste of taxpayer dollars, of course), because computers would never be fast enough to crunch all the numbers required to knock down the incoming missiles.
Never, unless maybe you networked a couple Playstations. SciAm is a pretty magazine and an interesting read, but not worth trusting because of its various agendas and faddish flings.
It might better be titled “Popular Science,” but that name is taken by a more trustworthy mag.
Dr. S, I’ve been putting in some pretty long hours for the past 6 weeks. Big crunch time, It’s eased up a bit, so I have a some time for something other than working and sleeping. Always a joy to read your contributions.
The following is a simple way to understand why and how it is possible that the sun has small impact in the changes of climate/weather
There is the thermodynamic model of the sun and a planet as a stove and a kettle. Sun on, kettle boils( day side) sun off kettle freezes (night side). This fits the moon very well.
The earth is different and, evidently, must follow a different thermodynamic model. A simple example is the air conditioner. The power source is steady, can even play within 5% , the temperature and humidity is controlled by the thermostat, and NOT by the power source.
The power source ( sun) is necessary but is not sufficient to describe the earth’s response. A many parameter system is necessary (ocean currents, air currents, precipitation, evaporation, cloud formation,…) , similar to a thermostat, since for millions of years there has been no tipping point into a boiling earth or a snowball earth.
People who think “it is the sun stupid” should ponder a bit on the last example.
we may not reach 1900 temperatures yet as oceans were cooler then coming out of the little ice age.
some overview about solar/cosmic ray influence.
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002838.html
still, the mechanisms have not been fully understood or experimentally validated and quantified.
I think it is a shame, that it takes over a decade to start the cloud experiment, when science is so controversial about it’s outcome.
Measuring and quantifiying this mechanism would be an important input for better climate models.
Jeff Alberts (21:23:50) :
“Who is making things up?
Those who claim that because there’s no evidence of their pet theory that it could still be happening. You know, like Astrology, Psychic powers, etc.”
Beware single-issue experts with pet theories:
http://thefatbigot.blogspot.com/2008/09/how-expert-is-expert.html
sorry OT but FRED… you wrote;
“Last week NASA had to bite the bullet and admit they have been wrong for 30 years about the Antarctic Ice Sheet shrinking – they admitted that it has been growing steadily at .06%. per year.”
I’ve been googling but no luck. Can you please provide a link to that?
Thanks
Wow! This is just great. This is absolutely fascinating & even incredible! Years of “models” telling exactly when the Sun will start Cycle 24, a dead cert, how furious it will be, another dead cert, shifting the start dates by “tuning & refining” the model because it didn’t start when they thought. Is this really the start of things? I ‘ve noted that the Met Office (UK) have declared that this winter maybe/possibly/could be/might be/ may just/be a little tad colder this time! I am no synic of course, being a half-century old engineer but it appears to me that rear-ends are being covered here, so that all the old rhetoric will be dressed up as being “merely indications based solely on the available science at the time,” etc., despite many scientists, economists, & policymakers saying “hold on just one minute lets not be too hasty here!” I’ve been reading this website & ICECAP & CA for several years & all that’s been said appears to be bearing fruit. We’ve had warnings from “those in the know” about global cooling for a set period, eg, to 2015, 2018, 2020, making 20 years of cooling, all after it started to occur, now we’re getting the works. Somehow I still think CO2 will get blamed even for this one! Perhaps it’s escaping thro’ the atmosphere (only the anthropogenic stuff naturally) being dragged towards the Sun by gravitational pull & shutting down the Sun’s magnetic field, has to be true, just has to be, the debate is over! We’re running out of time! Where is a good old Serbian astrophysisist when you need one? We’re all doomed, Captain Mainwearing!
Does anyone out there in the blogosphere know where I can buy a really top notch Crystal Ball, my old one appears to be firing on only two cylinders?
Apologies for this grumpy old rant but it’s just my age. I am fed up with eco-hysteria & Man being tried, found guilty in his “absence” from the trial by his worst enemy, himself!
Bobby Lane (22:46:22) :
I have always lived by the mantra that being an ‘expert’ on anything does not ensure that you are always right, it just makes it less likely for you to be wrong.
Pamela Gray (22:57:55) :
wonder of the scientific community in the modern age, has come to the conclusion that they have at least been introduced to all there is to know?
For both of you:
When an ‘expert’ scientist claims that something can’t happen, he is almost certainly wrong. When he says that something is possible, he is often right.
anna v, as an engineer that analogy annoys. Power fluctuations to the unit will most certainly affect its output and the thermostat is merely switching the actual power source. Maybe you could find a better one – although I can see the point you are trying to make.
Leif Svalgaard (17:00:03) :
Bill Marsh (16:21:59) :
If so has it reached the edge of the heliosphere where the influence on GCR would start to be felt?
In my answer “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…”
For the sake of accuracy, there is a typo here. ’75 hours’ should be ’15 hours’. Not that it matters much.
[…] Verder speculeren kan in de comments. (voor inspiratie klik hierrr) […]
bushy (02:25:01) :
“anna v, as an engineer that analogy annoys. Power fluctuations to the unit will most certainly affect its output and the thermostat is merely switching the actual power source. Maybe you could find a better one – although I can see the point you are trying to make.”
I live in a country where we are supposed to be getting 220 from the mains. I have often measured it to be from 200 to 240. Sure it will perturb the system, but the refrigerator kept on freezing the stuff.
It is a better analogy if you think for example of albedo, i.e. light reflected back to space. It is similar as changing the power from the source, because the power never reaches the ground. A “thermostat” as a concept, not a one to one correspondence, something that keeps temperatures stable, releasing energy if needed or storing it if in excess. A multiparameter system.
I agree with Roy,
I urge everyone to read ‘The Chilling Stars – A Cosmic View of Climate Change’, by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder (Icon Books Ltd, 2008). It is a very accessible, very absorbing, and incredibly important read given the current state of things.
I do very much believe that, whatever NASA say at the much awaited conference, hummanity as a whole has been so self-absorbed and so self-important that we have been ‘barking up the wrong tree’ with regards to climate change. We should have paid more attention to the myriad of ancient civilisations who were obsessed with solar activity.
Oli
http://www.ocook.net
Actually, the press conference will be based on this already published paper. [NASA usually only holds a press conference AFTER the paper is published]:
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L18103, doi:10.1029/2008GL034896, 2008
Weaker solar wind from the polar coronal holes and the whole Sun
D. J. McComas, R. W. Ebert, H. A. Elliott, B. E. Goldstein, J. T. Gosling, N. A. Schwadron, R. M. Skoug
Abstract
Observations of solar wind from both large polar coronal holes (PCHs) during Ulysses’ third orbit showed that the fast solar wind was slightly slower, significantly less dense, cooler, and had less mass and momentum flux than during the previous solar minimum (first) orbit. In addition, while much more variable, measurements in the slower, in-ecliptic wind match quantitatively with Ulysses and show essentially identical trends. Thus, these combined observations indicate significant, long-term variations [their 50 years] in solar wind output from the entire Sun. The significant, long-term trend to lower dynamic pressures means that the heliosphere has been shrinking and the heliopause must be moving inward toward the Voyager spacecraft. In addition, our observations suggest a significant and global reduction in the mass and energy fed in below the sonic point in the corona. The lower supply of mass and energy may result naturally from a reduction of open magnetic flux during this period.
Received 11 June 2008; accepted 14 August 2008; published 18 September 2008.
[…] NEWS: NASA to hold press conference on the state of the sun « Watts Up With That? […]
Leif (04:16:02) So is there a purpose in having a big teleconference? What might be the questions that they’d get from a curious world about the meaning of this manifestation of solar change? Is this merely routine after a paper, or is something else afoot?
=========================================