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
Ric Werme: “BTW, some of what I learned from that period lives on at http://wermenh.com/eqoftm.html and explains why the earliest sunset is weeks before the latest sunset. (While the effect is greatest for the December solstice, it happens in June too.”
Thank you Ric, you have inadvertently answered a question I have wondered about since I moved to Florida. The time of sunrise is later each day for a week or two after the winter solstice, I never knew why. This is another reason why this blog is so successful and one I visit a couple of times a day.
To Anthony and the regular posters: you are all outstanding!!!!!!!!
Leif,
Anthony,
re: wattsupwiththat (08:04:20) :
…Dr. Leif Svalgaard as the WUWT “official solar physicist”….
I do totally agree with that. There needs to be someone, who put’s
us – scientifically – down to earth – in some cases.
Pro Leif:
Yesterday, I had some good old friends (since the mid-seventies) from
Flensburg and Apenrade (danish Åbenrå) and from Netherlands were here.
They had two bottles of Ålborg’s Jubileaums Aquavit with them.
Oh my dear, awaking was tough. Ahm still amazed that my head fits through the doors. So my expirience is: Two bottles of Aquavit and two boxes of
Flensburg Pilsener (16 x 0.5 Liters each, “BeugelBuddelBeer”) are beyond anything good. But is was nevertheless a long and funny night.
One of the friends is still with the German Sea Rescue Service Society,
http://www.dgzrs.de
or
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dgzrs
english: http://www.dgzrs.de/index.php?id=265
(“We go out when everybody else tries to get in”).
One is still with the Netherlands Sea Rescue Service, another is
already retired.
Have much fun and keep posting
KlausB
KlausB (11:42:00) :
They had two bottles of Ålborg’s Jubileaums Aquavit with them. Oh my dear, awaking was tough. Ahm still amazed that my head fits through the doors.
In Denmark we drink that stuff for breakfast, some people drink something worse called Gammel Dansk 🙂
Does warm you up on a cold winter’s morning.
Leif: “In Denmark we drink that stuff for breakfast, some people drink something worse called Gammel Dansk 🙂
Does warm you up on a cold winter’s morning.”
Do we drink Jubilæumsakvavit for breakfast? I didn’t know that. Not in our family. Perhaps in Leif’s 😉
Schnapps (eg Jubilæumsakvavit) is usually enjoyed at lunch or dinner time. It is particularly popular around Easter and Christmas when we also eat pickled heering (sometimes the heering is fried also) and drink lots of beer with it.
Gammel Dansk is a different story. The awful bitter is loosing popularity but yes it is(was) often enjoyed at breakfast time with “rundstykker” (a kind of breakfast rolls)
So, according to NASA, the last time the sun was this quiet was 1934.
Wasn’t that the year that New York City set a record for cold temperature of -15degF ?
What an odd coincidence were those both to be true!
Niels A Nielsen (12:48:35) :
Do we drink Jubilæumsakvavit for breakfast? I didn’t know that. Not in our family. Perhaps in Leif’s 😉
Times are changing. Gammel Dansk only came out in the 1960s. 🙂
The Danes have become a bit more sophisticated, it seems. Truth be told, I haven’t lived in Denmark the last 40 odd years.
Walt (13:01:09) :
So, according to NASA, the last time the sun was this quiet was 1934.
No, 1954 June.
I’m not sure what they’ll have to say about the solar system, but I’m a bit worried that they will try and pre-empt the “deniers” of climate change by providing an explanation for recent cooling. In simplified terms, it could go like this:
1. Higher CO2 levels lead to higher temperatures.
2. Over the past century, while the sun was behaving “normally”, the increase in man-made CO2 was therefore responsible for rising temperatures.
3. However, the sun is now entering a temporary period of abnormally weak output which will lead to cooler temperatures.
4. This doesn’t mean that man-made global warming is a hoax, but rather that a new, extraordinary, one-time event is occurring that will temporarily offset the effects of rising CO2 on temperatures.
5. We still need to reduce CO2 emissions while the world cools down because when the sun eventually returns to “normal” output in X years, we will witness a dramatic spike in temperatures, reverting to the previous trend, if CO2 levels have been allowed to continue rising.
Not sure how we would respond to such a line of reasoning.
Leif,
I am fairly certain that you have some idea of common misconceptions voiced about the Sun from your work on this blog at least, if not your general interaction with the non-cyberspace public. So, based on your knowledge of said misconceptions, can you state what the Sun and our Earth would possibly be like if these misconceptions were correct? That might bring some clarity to the issue. It would at least be interesting.
Steve (14:05:01) :
3. However, the sun is now entering a temporary period of abnormally weak output which will lead to cooler temperatures.
This is not a ‘temporary period’ [well, actually, all periods are temporary, except ‘eternity’, but you know what i mean], the Sun is returning to a state of quiet that it is in about half of the time, so not abnormal.
4. This doesn’t mean that man-made global warming is a hoax, but rather that a new, extraordinary, one-time event is occurring that will temporarily offset the effects of rising CO2 on temperatures.
Not extraordinary
Not sure how we would respond to such a line of reasoning.
Neither do I. Human stupidity and gullibility know no bounds it seems.
Bobby Lane (14:14:29) :
So, based on your knowledge of said misconceptions, can you state what the Sun and our Earth would possibly be like if these misconceptions were correct?
Since many of the misconceptions are mutually contradictory, it does not seem possible to do what you suggests. Could you list some of them that you deem ‘worthy’ [if a misconception can be worthy] to discuss.
Leif,
Well, the point of illustrating misconceptions, I thought, was to illustrate how they are indeed mutually contradictory. So don’t try to craft a logical ‘new’ picture. Just tell us what it might both be and not be like. Give us an ‘A’ side and a ‘B’ side of what you feel are the more popular and enduring misconceptions. If you wish any emphasis from me then I would suggest limiting it to those that have the most direct impact on the current “does the Sun affect Earth’s global temperatures” debate. That might not help much, but that is all I can think of at present.
Bobby Lane (15:00:50) :
Well, the point of illustrating misconceptions, I thought, was to illustrate how they are indeed mutually contradictory.
But if they are misconceptions, then they are by definition wrong and it does not much sense to discuss if they were correct. Maybe your point is that they are only misconceptions to some people, for others they are gospel truths. Now, if you can’t think of any, they clearly don’t bother you. Let me know if you come across one.
If we take your question “does the Sun affect Earth’s global temperatures”, then where is the misconception? Is it that the Sun does affect the climate or is it that the “ Sun does not affect Earth’s global temperatures”?
If the Sun isn’t quite heating the Earth 100%, over time the loss will add up, say 3 cycles of sunspots. The converse is true for the re-heating. It too takes time. One bum cycle wont’ drop the Earths temp that far, but it should drop it a tad.
So, the heating or lessened heating of any given cycle has to be a relative thing, relative to where the averge Earth temp was.
If anyone wants to say the Sun has no effect whatsoever on the Earth, fine, just go take the temp on the backside of Mercury or the Moon.
Robert Bateman (15:42:04) :
If anyone wants to say the Sun has no effect whatsoever on the Earth, fine, just go take the temp on the backside of Mercury or the Moon.
I thought we were done with that silly statement, but apparently not. What is important is if the tiny variations of the sun induces measurable [or even significant] variations of climate. About adding up: there was a drop in temps in the 1960s, now, either you go the AGW route and say that that drop was due to aerosols, or you say it was caused by solar cycle 20 being a low cycle. If the first YAHF [a new acronym I have invented: You Are Home-Free], if the second there is no delay in the cooling so why would there be a delay in the warming? If you selectively invoke delays here and there, you can match anything.
Leif Svalgaard (15:15:26) : “But if they are misconceptions, then they are by definition wrong and it does not much sense to discuss if they were correct. Maybe your point is that they are only misconceptions to some people, for others they are gospel truths. Now, if you can’t think of any, they clearly don’t bother you.”
That response elicits both a laugh and a smile from me, all in good humor. Spoken like a true scientist! Stick to the facts indeed. But my point was to contrast imagination with reality. The misconceptions do bother me, just not like they bother you; but they do illustrate wrong-headed thinking that is based on ‘common sense’ or popular science rather than real science. I wanted to explore the ideas and the logical fallacies caused when imposing such misconceptions upon a world of similar ‘realness’ to our own. It’s basically like a computer simualation using different variables to see what different outcomes would be like; whether they can exist together or in reality at all is not the concern here. Does that make sense?
I don’t want to give concrete specifics because you seem to get stuck on them and miss answering my question, and it is not the purpose of imagination to deal with what can or cannot not exist in our reality. That is all I think I am asking. *grin* Are you up for it?
It is silly to assume that variation in solar activity plays no measurable or significant part in climate change. Evidence and support literally abounds in the literature. Even IPCC considers some measure of increased solar activity as cause of the increase of the first half of last century’s temperatures.
“Similarly, the Modern Maximum is partly responsible for global warming, especially the temperature increases between 1900 and 1950. Residual warming due to the sustained high level of activity since 1950 is believed responsible for 16 to 36% of recent warming (Stott et al. 2003).”
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Sunspot_Numbers_png
As to attempts to downplay increased solar activity:
“Solar activity before 1882 is lower than generally assumed and consequently solar activity in the last few decades is higher than it has been for several centuries.”
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j88xl5q6u7931728/
Glenn (16:20:22) :
“Solar activity before 1882 is lower than generally assumed and consequently solar activity in the last few decades is higher than it has been for several centuries.”
Did you take the trouble to read my paper on the calibration of the sunspot number in 1946? If not, end of story. If you did, which specific statements do you find wrong. This is not rocket science, just plain ole data analysis.
Bobby Lane (16:13:01) :
The misconceptions do bother me, just not like they bother you; but they do illustrate wrong-headed thinking that is based on ‘common sense’ or popular science rather than real science.
OK, so if I can choose the misconceptions, let me begin with this one: Solar activity is at an all-time high and that’s why the temps have been going up the last few hundred years, following the rise in solar activity. Before I start, can I ask if that is a ‘good’ misconception that you would like explored?
At the risk of being accused again of cherry picking, here is additional and recent support for solar activity substantially and measurably increasing:
“The model predicts an increase in the total solar irradiance since the Maunder Minimum of about 1.3 Wm−2.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3S-4N68NMP-B&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3e00cf58cdb95513f4b47bc168cb3eb8
Leif,
Since the sun basically consists of H and He what mechanism is responsible for the sun’s magnetic fields?
Leif,
Now you’ve gotten it! Yes, that and others of similar nature would be just what I am asking of you. Say on.
Leif Svalgaard (13:22:12) :
Cool. After the hurricane of 1938, hurricane Carol in 1954 is the storm most commented on in New England, at least RI, CT, MA, and NH. Edna 10 days after Carol had a bigger impact in ME. We don’t even need a Sun/Climate link to be concerned.
Joe D’Aleo and I both mentioned to the NH Climate Change Task Force Thursday night that they should worry more about a repeat of the ’38 storm.
See http://wermenh.com/climate/gccptf.html (Needs some cleanup)
We could find ourselves 3 days from a repeat and the sudden realization that, like New Orleans and Galveston, we’re not really ready. The combination of cool PDO and warm AMO is bad news for the east coast, but the task force is CO2-centric….
Glenn (16:47:56) :
At the risk of being accused again of cherry picking, here is additional and recent support for solar activity substantially and measurably increasing:
There is no ‘additional’ support, the full abstract [and here I might call it cherry-picking or not reading it carefully enough] reads:
“We present a reconstruction of total solar irradiance since 1610 to the present based on variations of the surface distribution of the solar magnetic field. The latter is calculated from the historical record of the Group sunspot number using a simple but consistent physical model. Our model successfully reproduces three independent data sets: total solar irradiance measurements available since 1978, total photospheric magnetic flux from 1974 and the open magnetic flux since 1868 (as empirically reconstructed from the geomagnetic aa-index). The model predicts an increase in the total solar irradiance since the Maunder Minimum of about 1.3 Wm−2.”
Two things wrong with this [that the model reproduces stuff after 1975 is no big deal, all models do that, even mine – as that is just the calibration period]:
1) it uses the Group Sunspot Number which does not reflect the real activity. I once said that you would only use or believe ‘official ‘ numbers. The Group sunspot number is not the officially recognized sunspot number, but, of course comes in handy for your purpose[cherry-picking again?]
2) it calibrates the parameters of the model to reproduce the ‘doubling’ of the interplanetary [and by inference, the solar] magnetic field advocated by Lockwood et al. Even Lockwood has now recognized that the aa-index is also incorrectly calibrated and the latest results from his group match closely what we found: no doubling.
Did you read the paper?
And what are your line-by-line objections?
Ric Werme (17:07:17) :
After the hurricane of 1938, hurricane Carol in 1954 is the storm most
1938 was at solar maximum, 1954 at a very deep solar minimum.
What’s the connection?
Leif,
Cherry picking your own literature and assuming that is the end of the story isn’t the way to convince any but the faithful. As I have told you many times, there is a correlation seen by many between the sun and climate. The suns effect on climate is controversial in the sense of small changes in solar intensities not having a mechanism to influence the climate in the atmosphere, but not in the sense that there are challenges to basic accepted data such as cycle intensities or to the correlation itself.
If you’ve managed to convince others of your opinion on past sunspot counts changing basic understandings of such things as the Modern Maximum, then I might take notice. Till then it appears that you are on your own. And references can and have been found that are in contradiction to your claims.
“The sun’s role in the earth’s recent warming remains controversial
even though there is a good deal of evidence to support the thesis that solar
variations are a very significant factor in driving climate change both currently and in the past.”
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0706/0706.3621.pdf