This is interesting. It seems that NASA has taken an interest in the current solar minimum and is getting ready to launch one or more studies about it. They are soliciting proposals. Leif, here is your chance. – Anthony
From this NASA document (PDF here)
ROSES-09 Amendment 1: New proposal opportunity in Appendix B.9:
Causes and Consequences of the Minimum of Solar Cycle 23
This amendment establishes a new program element in Appendix B.9
entitled gCauses and Consequences of the Minimum of Solar Cycle
23.h This new program element solicits proposals to study the causes
and consequences of the minimum of Solar Cycle 23. Proposals are
encouraged that take advantage of this opportunity with studies of
domains ranging from the center of the Sun through terrestrial and
planetary space environments to the boundary of the heliosphere. High
priority will be given to studies addressing the interaction between
various regimes.
Notices of Intent to propose are due April 17, 2009, and proposals
are due June 5, 2009.
On or about March 6, 2009, this Amendment to the NASA Research
Announcement gResearch Opportunities in Space and Earth Sciences
(ROSES) 2009 (NNH09ZDA001N) will be posted on the NASA research
opportunity homepage at http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (select
gSolicitationsh then gOpen Solicitationsh then gNNH09ZDA001Nh).
Further information about the Causes and Consequences of the Minimum
of Solar Cycle 23 program element is available from Dr. Mary Mellott,
Heliophysics Division, Science Mission Directorate, NASA
Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546; Telephone: (202) 358-0893;
E-mail: mary.m.mellott@nasa.gov.
Michael Ronanye writes:
This is a three year project with funding of 1.5 million dollars per year and total funding of 4.5 million dollars over the life of the project. This is a very good insurance and CYA policy on NASA’s part. They may get some interesting research out of the project and if conditions on the Sun take an unexpected turn, they can always say: “Yes Senator, NASA was right of top of the situation and we funded this new project on 3/5/2009”!
From the document:
.9 CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE MINIMUM OF SOLAR CYCLE 23
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/view….B.9%20CCMSC.pdf
B.9 CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE MINIMUM OF SOLAR CYCLE 23
1. Scope of Program
In 2009, we are in the midst of the minimum of solar activity that marks the end of Solar Cycle 23. As this cycle comes to an end we are recognizing, in retrospect, that the Sun has been extraordinarily quiet during this particular Solar Cycle minimum. This is evidenced in records of both solar activity and the response to it of the terrestrial space environment. For example:
Causes – Solar output
- Lowest sustained solar radio flux since the F 10.7 proxy was created in 1947;
- Solar wind global pressure the lowest observed since the beginning of the Space age;
- Unusually high tilt angle of the solar dipole throughout the current solar minimum;
- Solar wind magnetic field 36% weaker than during the minimum of Solar Cycle 22;
- Effectively no sunspots;
- The absence of a classical quiescent equatorial streamer belt; and
- Cosmic rays at near record-high levels.
Consequences
- With the exception of 1934, 2008 had more instances of 3-hr periods with Kp=0 than any other year since the creation of the index in 1932;
- Cold contracted ionosphere and upper atmosphere; and
- Remarkably persistent recurrent geomagnetic activity.
Thus, we have an unprecedented opportunity to characterize the quiet/background state of the heliosphere when the solar source function is as close to the ground state as it has been in the modern era.
NASA’s Heliophysics Division wishes to facilitate study of this special period. This ROSES element thus solicits proposals to study the Causes and Consequences of the Minimum of Solar Cycle 23 (CCMSC). Proposals are encouraged that take advantage of this opportunity with studies of domains ranging from the center of the Sun through terrestrial and planetary space environments to the boundary of the heliosphere. High priority will be given to studies addressing the interaction between various regimes.
Taking maximum advantage of this opportunity will require interaction between specialists in different regimes. Selected Principal Investigators will have responsibilities for both their own specific research and for participation in a yearly workshop where all the CCMSC investigators will be brought together to explore the implications of their own work for other regions. Proposals should address both of these responsibilities.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Am I the only one who finds this latest “He I 10830 Å spectroheliogram” from the U.S. National Solar Observatory at Kitt Peak (Arizona)” strange?
http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/images/latest_nsoHe.gif
(From here http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/images/ )
I know it is only symantics, but I would like to get everyone on the same page. On the Hannity Global Warming Watch thread, we have been calling this the Gore-Hansen minimum for some time, yet here it seems to be the Hansen-Gore effect. I would hate for the AGW guys to find a way to get us divided because of a matter of who gets top billing.
LAShaffer (11:17:16) :
I make the same mistake all the time – so easy to do… LOL
Leif! Leif! Leif!
I got it. A sure-fire winning project that will definitely get approval from NASA. Say you have a theoretical link between the solar minimum and “climate change”. You will definitely get funded then!
Robert, the solar flux will be 65 in June. Still flatlining.
David: What do you make of the lagtime of 6 weeks +-1 ?
Manmade or external?
I see it hazily in the 2008 data.
I’ll have to run a graphing program on the Flux for the uncorrected, corrected and 0.9x values.
Any reccomendations on graphing software that is public domain and runs on Windows?
I’m using a trial version of Findgraph right now.
Policyguy (20:21:37) :
Did we see solar flux dip below 69 this week?
It has been below 69 for several months now. You [and Anthony] and Archibald and others] are looking at the wrong flux. The flux reflecting solar activity is the ‘adjusted’ flux, that today is 67.4:
2454904.322 2081.162 2009 03 13 2000 0068.2 0067.4 0060.7 2 As you can see here: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png the Sun has started is slow climb into cycle 24, if ever so slightly.
And for the zillion’th time: cosmic rays are not at record highs, but just where they are every odd-even solar minimum. Now, NASA said ‘near record high’. Behold the subtlety here. Say, for illustration that the count is 1986 was 4000, and in 1965 also 4000, and today also 4000, then 4001 would be record high and indeed 4000 would be near 4001…
vukcevic (04:24:35) :
Babcock-Leighton solar dynamo hypothesis goes something like this: […] This hypothesis is basis of the NASA’s current understanding. I suggest a detailed re-examination of this hypothesis is required.
Why is that required? The B-L dynamo is the very basis for our prediction of SC24 being the lowest cycle in a 100 years, and the Sun seems well on its way to a low cycle.
NASA gets a poor report card:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12608&page=R1
TonyS (12:08:33) :
Am I the only one who finds this latest “He I 10830 Å spectroheliogram” from the U.S. National Solar Observatory at Kitt Peak (Arizona)” strange?
http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/images/latest_nsoHe.gif
It is an old one, here is ‘the latest’:
http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/images/latest_solisHe.gif
Bobby Lane (13:02:36) :
Say you have a theoretical link between the solar minimum and “climate change”. You will definitely get funded then!
I don’t and I won’t
Tim L (08:27:25) :
You said ” short cycles = less TSI” and I said ” long cycles were cooler”
“short cycles = more solar activity at maximum”
Whatever you think of climatology, it could be worse.
I came across “Earth Under Fire” by Paul LaViolette on Google Books. It purports to be science, but it’s pretty clear it’s actually science fiction. See the reviews here to get a taste of what it is like:
http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/EUF-reviews.html
Atlantis, Mayan calendar, 2012, Revelations, and much much more.
He says the last ice age ended because a wave of cosmic dust caused a T Tauri type flare up of the sun. Reading this is much more fun than reading the mainstream climate apocalypse news.
I know many have jokingly referred to this as the “Gore Minimum” (and where’s the fun if it goes over his inflated head?), but I thought it has been officially named for Theodor Landscheidt. Or am I mistaken?
Leif Svalgaard (21:39:12) :
maybe i am in a parallel universe ?
Robert, the solar flux will look after itself for a while. What I am doing now is preparing for Solar Cycle 23’s birthday. It will be 13 years old next month – a teenager!. Thirteen is a coming of age that is celebrated by a number of cultures. Very few humans get to experience a solar cycle this long. The last time was over 200 years ago. We live in a special time with our special solar cycle.
Dr Svalgaard keeps saying that GCRs have peaked out, and I keep going back to Oulu and find that the neutron count is still in uptrend. Oh well, wishing can’t change hard data.
“Oh calm down. I saw nothing in the release about studying climate, only the Sun and first order related effects (e.g. cold contracted ionosphere). This isn’t a request from NASA’s GISS, it’s from NASA’s Heliophysics Division.
I won’t hazard a guess as how they would consider a proposal take advantage of this unique opportunity to look for climate effects related to this remarkable minimum.”
I was being sarcastic and stressing NASA’s CYA policy. I thought it was rather funny in the age when the “science is settled”.
“Pat,
-14° C is around +7° F
-14° F is about -26° C
Either way is cold, but F!!! not C is colder. Just teasin’ you metric users…. ha!”
I stand corrected however, shouldn’t you join the the 17th century like the other metric users?
David Archibald (23:17:04) :
Dr Svalgaard keeps saying that GCRs have peaked out, and I keep going back to Oulu and find that the neutron count is still in uptrend. Oh well, wishing can’t change hard data.
And you still do not understand that just looking at one station is misleading. Here is a composite of three stations [up through the end of Feb.]: http://www.leif.org/research/Thule-Oulu-Moscow.png
One should be careful about referring to a solar minimum and mentioning Gore in the same breath – next thing you know he’ll be saying he “discovered” it.
Well, space weather is showing a new spot emerging in the Southern Hemisphere but haven’t numbered it or announced its parentage yet. Another Cycle 23?
Leif,
At the link you gave,
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
I note the TSI is at 1360.8
In the current WUWT post about the Scafetta-Wilson Paper there is a graph which makes your TSI appear to be at 1365.6.
Why are the numbers different?
I need to know because I find myself getting sucked into debates with people smarter than me, against my will. I find that, when argueing above my head, it helps to be able to whip out facts and speak with great authority. However I need to make sure I have my numbers right. (It is very deflating to be corrected, right in the middle of a pompous rant.)
Caleb (07:29:00) :
I note the TSI is at 1360.8
your TSI appear to be at 1365.6.
Why are the numbers different?
Because there are systematic differences between the various spacecrafts of the order of 5 W/m2. It is very difficult to get the absolute value correct so people simply move the scale up and down a bit when comparing data. The relative variation [and that is what matters here] is much more accurate, so the TSI from two spacecraft will show the same ‘wiggles’.
Leif Svalgaard (20:21:45) :
To
vukcevic (04:24:35) :
…….The B-L dynamo is the very basis for our prediction of SC24 being the lowest cycle in a 100 years, and the Sun seems well on its way to a low cycle.
Babcock-Leighton solar dynamo hypothesis contains in its definition number of contradictions, physics’ and statistically questionable, too dependent on chance (as you are well aware), and extremely unlikely to produce response of a regular form as recently measured.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarFields-vf.gif
Let’s take SC23 as an example:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/SC23.gif
As it can be seen it has a considerable area asymmetry (and if you throw in a double dynamo, with two operating independently) , while the current two polar fields “formed independently” from SC23 have no significant asymmetry whatsoever; a major statistical miracle.
There are numerous other problems with B-L , not to mention getting out of the Maunder and Dalton minima, cycles 19-20, etc.
I do not particularly dispute fact that polar fields may be seed for the next cycle and possibility that can be used as a loose indicator of what may follow.
However, as far as predictions are concerned, predictions are just that and no more.
Svalgaard / Cliver prediction formula goes back only 3 cycles, statistically too low sample to be significant.
As a matter of interest Vukcevic combined formula which has a good past record (16 out of 19 cycles) predicts peak of 78 (smoothed 70 or less) sometime in 2013 or lower in 2014.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined.gif
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/Solar_cycles.gif
You may dispute its value, but it has at least 200 year 19 cycles record, with 85% success rate, far more meaningful then just 3 cycles with 100% record, but I do not dispute Svalgaard / Cliver record, it is the other way around, and bear in mind that the current solar science and knowledge are not absolute.
vukcevic (08:16:21) :
Let’s take SC23 as an example
I thought we had gotten rid off you, that you had taken your ball and went home.
Unfortunately not so.
You have predicted nothing. The curve fitting with a small number of parameters is numerology. There is no basis in physics. The B-L dynamo is alive and well and has no problems or contradictions. The randomness is a significant and important element, just as in predicting the weather. Anybody should be suspicious of a formula purporting to predict that there will be a tornado in Houston at 1:32 pm on May 11th, 2087.
REPLY: Actually, it will be in Galveston. 😉 Anthony
Leif Svalgaard (08:33:24) :
vukcevic (08:16:21) :
Anybody should be suspicious of a formula purporting to predict that there will be a tornado in Houston at 1:32 pm on May 11th, 2087.
REPLY: Actually, it will be in Galveston. 😉 Anthony
Darn! I forgot to take Pluto into account.
REPLY: Correct, when predicting barycentric induced tornadic mesoscale cyclones, all planetary mass must be considered. Even though Pluto was recently downgraded from planet status it must be included in the calculation. Many have forgotten to do so due to Pluto’s status. 😉
– Anthony
Dr. Svalgaard and Anthony,
I thought we had gotten rid off you, that you had taken your ball and went home.
Unfortunately not so.
On the matter I won the argument (the correlation of the Vukcevic formula being excellent), condition was you produce alternative, after some parabolic, shall I call it a ‘joke’, my formula appears to have been mutilated, presented as something new. The agreement was to tell us how you done it, you never did, so according to the Queensberry rules, you lost the argument, so I shall not discuss any further ‘the unquestionable correlation excellence of Vukcevic formula.
I am never afraid of loosing an argument, if I have to, otherwise what is point of arguing the subject.
As far as Pluto is concerned, I should not take names of the ancient gods in jest, I was born and grew up not too many miles away, and I can tell you, their rage is absolutely fatal to us mere mortals.
Anthony,
my ranting is not about barycentre, it is on electro-magnetic lines, your blog is top, and I owe to it ‘my solar science circles infamy, and I am particularly proud to be known as ‘an illiterate of superior ignorance’ in his vane attempt to shake out giants of the solar science.
Thanks again giving me, and likes, opportunity which I hope not to abuse.