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.
vukcevic (09:25:22) :
The agreement was to tell us how you done it, you never did, so according to the Queensberry rules, you lost the argument,
Perhaps you missed it. I simply said that the observed polar fields had a 20.4 year period and that there is a long-term amplitude variation of solar activity and hence also of the polar fields. The period I used [104 years] is just the one matching the observations, the rest is standard math to match the observations. The point was just to show that it is easy to produce excellent fits to existing data, but such a fit does not guarantee a match outside of the domain used in the fit, hence that the mere existence of an excellent correlation cannot be used as a predictive tool unless it is based on solid physics [which, BTW, yours is as I have shown repeatedly]. And while we are on explanation where things come from: where does the pi/3 phase in your formula come from? Let us see if the Queensberry rules can be used to ferret out that nugget. To be proud of ignorance is a bad thing.
Leif Svalgaard (09:52:26) :
vukcevic (09:25:22) :
hence that the mere existence of an excellent correlation cannot be used as a predictive tool unless it is based on solid physics [which, BTW, yours is notas I have shown repeatedly].
I missed a NOT there.
where does the pi/3 phase in your formula come from
Pi/3 is an acronym for a long number 1.04719755119660, but as you will realise does not make much difference. That particular match is over, if you loose can’t blame the ref.
The ordinary everyday’s ignorance yes, bad; but ‘superior ignorance’ is an exceptional quality.
vukcevic (10:39:18) :
“where does the pi/3 phase in your formula come from”
Pi/3 is an acronym for a long number 1.04719755119660, but as you will realise does not make much difference. That particular match is over, if you loose can’t blame the ref.
The ordinary everyday’s ignorance yes, bad; but ‘superior ignorance’ is an exceptional quality.
when ‘superior ignorance’ comes down to not knowing the difference between -114.112 [which is your value for 2004 with pi/3 phase] and -1.051 [which is your value for 2004 without the pi/3] then the ‘exceptional quality’ has faded considerably.
But you see the point is that it was there;
but as you will realise does not make much difference
was a remark directed to Dr. Svalgaard, the scientist who did nor consider this ‘science’.
Do I conclude, with considerably anxiety, that you may be coming round to this magnetospheric ‘astrology’ lark, since I do not desire intruders, even less a serious competition in my protectorate.
My dinner is getting cold. Dosvidaniya.
vukcevic (12:31:18) :
But you see the point is that it was there;
but as you will realise does not make much difference
was a remark directed to Dr. Svalgaard, the scientist who did nor consider this ‘science’.
Do I conclude, with considerably anxiety, that you may be coming round to this magnetospheric ‘astrology’ lark, since I do not desire intruders, even less a serious competition in my protectorate.
My dinner is getting cold. Dosvidaniya.
you posting is just gobbledygook, perhaps it is time to refrain from similar mutterings in the future, if you want to be taken seriously.
vukcevic (12:31:18) :
“But you see the point is that it was there”
you posting was just gobbledygook. You have a question to answer: where does the pi/3 come from? It will suffice to say that it is just fiddling to make it fit the observations, like my choice of 104 years for the long-term period in solar activity.
Vukcevic is certainly right about the outdated Babcock-Leighton theory. Imagine a theory that can predict a massive SC24 as per Dikpati and Hathaway, down to a low to medium cycle as Svalgaard predicts. With its different fudge factors built into the conveyor belt speed, to the ridiculous five tongued approach for loading the solar poles near the end of a cycle…pick a tongue, any tongue. No wonder NASA is looking at other methods.
Reply: Thank you. ~dbstealey, mod.
Geoff Sharp (17:29:36) :
Imagine a theory that can predict a massive SC24 as per Dikpati and Hathaway, down to a low to medium cycle as Svalgaard predicts.
That is the strength of the theory, that is covers it all. The different predictions come about because of different boundary conditions, like a weather forecast being different if you feed in different observations.
the ridiculous five tongued approach for loading the solar poles near the end of a cycle…pick a tongue, any tongue.
This happens to be an observational fact. Count them here: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/torsional.html
No wonder NASA is looking at other methods.
They are not.
Geoff Sharp says this in one post:
“No wonder NASA is looking at other methods.”
and you reply:
Reply: Be respectful, please. Thank you. ~dbstealey, mod.
Yet you allow Lief to say this and this is just one example:
Lief to Vuk:
“I thought we had gotten rid off you, that you had taken your ball and went home.
Unfortunately not so.
You have predicted nothing.”
This is NOT a fair playing field here. You guys let Lief systematically insult other posters….but when somebody raises and objection, its this:
Reply: Be respectful, please. Thank you. ~dbstealey, mod.
QUALIFICATION: I RESPECT DR. SVALGAARD…but it would be greatly appreciated that HE be held to the same standards as other serious contributors on this site.
Be respectful. Simple.
CHRIS
NORFOLK, VA
savethesharks (23:19:52) :
While agreeing with you in principle, on this occasion the moderator snipped the end of my comment because I was commenting on Anthony’s Reply.
I dont think he meant that my comments about the Babcock-Leighton theory were out of line.
Geoff Sharp: No wonder NASA is looking at other methods.
Dr. Svalgaard: They are not.
Perhaps, Dr. S., you may have not seen the subject of this thread. But I am sure you have. In light of the following, how can you claim: “They are not.”?
From NASA…..
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.
Chris
Norfolk, VA
savethesharks (06:04:57) :
Geoff Sharp: No wonder NASA is looking at other methods.
But I am sure you have. In light of the following, how can you claim: “They are not.”?
Because they aren’t. They are not looking at other models for the solar dynamo because the B-L dynamo has been abandoned or is in disrepute or anything like that. Within the framework of the B-L paradigm there is enough room for variation to encompass everything we have seen so far, including Grand minima. The specific topic at hand is the current minimum and in particular its consequences. How do i know? Because this is my field of specialty and I know what goes on both in front of and behind the curtain.
Leif and Anthony,
this site is slipping into totalitarian non-thinking at times (I know that sounds strong but). We are all intelligent enough to challenge ourselves and to be humble enough to be open minded. I’m tired of Leif’s attempt to silence the other voices on this blog in a rude manner. This site appears as an open forum and with the number of lies it has revealed from various sources it needs to be, however dismissive tactics are being used without proper study from Leif who is more than capable of such. This is leading to a new set of believers, the Svaalgard’s, who are largely taking it on trust that he is right. This is dangerous to the very cause this site so well achieves. It is clear to anyone who looks at the all the evidence properly that he isn’t the sole holder of truth. Real science never stops asking questions, you have provided many articles which show us all a chink of an insight that there is lots we don’t know. It is only through debate that we learn, speculation being an essential part. Leif acts like he is already complete. I think a lot of people will be intimidated by his approach and their valuable contribution is silenced. This is a travesty and if it continues will be to the detriment of the brilliant potential of this site.
(Sorry to be so serious but I have sat well back partly because of the lack of gentlemanly conduct here which quieted my input especially from Leif and nothing is changing and yet the questions still need to be asked).
Edward Morgan (09:09:24) :
however dismissive tactics are being used without proper study
Well, I think I have studied these ideas much more than they would have been considered by other scientists, but, hey, if the poster’s opinion is the prevailing attitude, I’ll be happy to call it a day [as I did in similar circumstances at Tamino’s].
REPLY: Bear in mind that I’m not making any suggestion that you leave the site. – Anthony
Leif, you know what I mean. This does not have to involve you going anywhere.
Edward Morgan (09:57:50) :
Leif, you know what I mean. This does not have to involve you going anywhere.
No. I do not know what you mean. Science is cruel and unforgiving. There is no room for an ‘open mind’. Ideas have to fit in the established framework for science to be able to build upon previous research. The few that don’t and are revolutionary are far between and I have not seen any here. Ideas should not violate physical law. If they do, they are as much nonsense as perpetuum mobiles. Wiggle matching is usually bad science, etc, etc. And IMHO opinion, it is not rude to characterize such things as nonsense, pseudo-science, etc. It is an obligation for a scientist to do so. The danger in that is that one often gets sullied by doing so.
Leif, so every article that appears on here that challenges what you have said, and there have been many, are totally wrong in your opinion? I would agree with what you said its just that I have read many other highly reputable and very bright scientists who disagree with you. They mostly have no voice on here. From Soon to Corbyn, Sharp and Monckton, Bellamy, Archibald, Maunder the list is endless. The one thing that remains the same is your rebuttal of all of them. That’s why this doesn’t add up. I have read them and their proof is clear. The fact you can’t see any of it and yet hold such a high position is what smells fishy and is so frustrating.
Lief wrote:
“There is no room for an ‘open mind’.” WHA????
“…Hey, if the poster’s opinion is the prevailing attitude, I’ll be happy to call it a day.”
Stop being so emotional, Lief. Why drag emotions into this?
The science IS WHAT IT IS. Res ipsa loquiter. I get that. We ALL get that. I KNOW you get that because you infer it all the time….and I AGREE.
And even though good science defends itself, I certainly appreciate your deep-felt need to defend it as well.
But to say there “is no room for an open mind” is about as contradictory a statement that I should ever expect coming from one of the world’s leading solar physicists.
If you spent less time emotionally addressing everyone who calls something you say, and STICKING TO THE DATA AND THE GREAT RESEARCH YOU HAVE WORKED YOUR WHOLE LIFE ON, then we would all be a lot better for it.
Thanks for your contributions….they are MUCH appreciated. But lighten up.
Chris
Norfolk, VA
By the way, Edward…would love to hear your contributions and please chime in to the following if you would like.
By a way of getting us back on track here…the quote from the start of this thread:
“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.”
this is for any scientist out there who would like to chime in:
Is the current climate at NASA such that HELIOPHYSICS have taken a back seat due to the Gore-Hansen rudder? What i mean by the “rudder” is that my hunch is they have steered most scientific research at NASA?
Anyone care to comment if Heliophysics have been-burnered at NASA, and now they are trying to play catch-up?
Chris
Norfolk, VA
Edward Morgan (10:56:31) :
I would agree with what you said its just that I have read many other highly reputable and very bright scientists who disagree with you.
Disagreement is the life blood of science. Feel-good agreement [‘you are on the right track’, ‘keep it up’, etc] is not.
the list is endless.
Some people on your list wouldn’t qualify as ‘scientists’… And you forgot Gore 🙂
savethesharks (11:21:20) :
But to say there “is no room for an open mind” is about as contradictory a statement that I should ever expect coming from one of the world’s leading solar physicists.
You left out my quotes as in ‘open mind’. What one should let into one’s mind is not everything whatsoever. Stuff has be vetted and weighed. Some people can do this, others cannot [no shame in not being able to do something – I cannot sing or run 100m in 10 seconds].
As to if I’m emotional… Who types in CAPITAL LETTERS here with multiple?????? I’m about as unemotional as they come. I try to explain things the best I can, not to argument for the sake of such. You are free to ignore my explanation as you see fit.
correction: “been back-burnered”
Greetings to All,
It will be interesting to see if we can turn the focus of this discussion back to the science.
I would be curious to know what Dr. Svalgaard believes might be responsible for the 7.8 year signal detected in European temperature time series by researchers at the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic – Geophysical Institute.
Best Regards,
Paul Vaughan.
Leif, my open mind sense (meaning) is different to yours your arguing with something I didn’t say think or mean. However, I give up. Not once have you agreed with any part of what I and others have said. And you will obviously continue. This is not a worthwhile exchange. You should challenge your scientific assumptions, re-evaluate even if you think and especially if you don’t think you need to.
savethesharks (11:46:27) :
Anyone care to comment if Heliophysics have been back-burnered at NASA, and now they are trying to play catch-up?
They got a poor report card: http://sun.stanford.edu/~todd/NAS.Heliophysics.pdf and are trying to show that they are doing something.