I got a tip by email from JohnA who runs solarscience.auditblogs.com about this NASA press release. John’s skeptical about it. He makes some good points in this post here.
What I most agree with JohnA’s post is about sunspots. While we’ve seen some small rumblings that the solar dynamo might be on the upswing, such as watching Leif’s plot of the 10.7 CM solar radio flux, there just doesn’t appear to be much change in character of the sunspots during the last year. And the magnetic field strength just doesn’t seem to be ramping up much.
He writes:
“Let’s check out the window”

On Solarcycle24.com they’ve got yet another sun speck recorded yesterday, that by today had disappeared. Exactly the same behaviour we’ve been having for 12 months with no end in sight.
I agree with JohnA, it’s still a bit slow out there. Leif is at the conference in Boulder where NASA made this announcement below, so perhaps he’ll fill us in on the details.
Here is the NASA story:
Mystery of the Missing Sunspots, Solved?
June 17, 2009: The sun is in the pits of a century-class solar minimum, and sunspots have been puzzlingly scarce for more than two years. Now, for the first time, solar physicists might understand why.
At an American Astronomical Society press conference today in Boulder, Colorado, researchers announced that a jet stream deep inside the sun is migrating slower than usual through the star’s interior, giving rise to the current lack of sunspots.
Rachel Howe and Frank Hill of the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson, Arizona, used a technique called helioseismology to detect and track the jet stream down to depths of 7,000 km below the surface of the sun. The sun generates new jet streams near its poles every 11 years, they explained to a room full of reporters and fellow scientists. The streams migrate slowly from the poles to the equator and when a jet stream reaches the critical latitude of 22 degrees, new-cycle sunspots begin to appear.
Above: A helioseismic map of the solar interior. Tilted red-yellow bands trace solar jet streams. Black contours denote sunspot activity. When the jet streams reach a critical latitude around 22 degrees, sunspot activity intensifies. [larger image] [more graphics]
Howe and Hill found that the stream associated with the next solar cycle has moved sluggishly, taking three years to cover a 10 degree range in latitude compared to only two years for the previous solar cycle.
The jet stream is now, finally, reaching the critical latitude, heralding a return of solar activity in the months and years ahead.
“It is exciting to see”, says Hill, “that just as this sluggish stream reaches the usual active latitude of 22 degrees, a year late, we finally begin to see new groups of sunspots emerging.”
he current solar minimum has been so long and deep, it prompted some scientists to speculate that the sun might enter a long period with no sunspot activity at all, akin to the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century. This new result dispells those concerns. The sun’s internal magnetic dynamo is still operating, and the sunspot cycle is not “broken.”
Because it flows beneath the surface of the sun, the jet stream is not directly visible. Hill and Howe tracked its hidden motions via helioseismology. Shifting masses inside the sun send pressure waves rippling through the stellar interior. So-called “p modes” (p for pressure) bounce around the interior and cause the sun to ring like an enormous bell. By studying the vibrations of the sun’s surface, it is possible to figure out what is happening inside. Similar techniques are used by geologists to map the interior of our planet.
In this case, researchers combined data from GONG and SOHO. GONG, short for “Global Oscillation Network Group,” is an NSO-led network of telescopes that measures solar vibrations from various locations around Earth. SOHO, the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, makes similar measurements from Earth orbit.
“This is an important discovery,” says Dean Pesnell of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. “It shows how flows inside the sun are tied to the creation of sunspots and how jet streams can affect the timing of the solar cycle.”
There is, however, much more to learn.
“We still don’t understand exactly how jet streams trigger sunspot production,” says Pesnell. “Nor do we fully understand how the jet streams themselves are generated.”
To solve these mysteries, and others, NASA plans to launch the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) later this year. SDO is equipped with sophisticated helioseismology sensors that will allow it to probe the solar interior better than ever before.
Right: An artist’s concept of the Solar Dynamics Observatory. [more]
“The Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) on SDO will improve our understanding of these jet streams and other internal flows by providing full disk images at ever-increasing depths in the sun,” says Pesnell.
Continued tracking and study of solar jet streams could help researchers do something unprecedented–accurately predict the unfolding of future solar cycles. Stay tuned for that!

James F. Evans (16:47:46) :
the original developer of MHD (and “frozen in” magnetic field lines), Hannes Alfven, later unequivocally rejected this approach as contradicting empirical results he achieved in the laboratory.
Here is a laboratory experiment showing the existence of frozen-in field and magnetic reconnection:
http://www.cfn.ist.utl.pt/EPS2001/fin/pdf/OR.07.pdf and I quote: “Fig. 2, in which the density evolution is represented as a function of magnetic flux Ψ and time. The density contours follow the evolution of Ψ, demonstrating that the plasma is frozen-in to the magnetic field.”
One of the issues with real plasmas is a phenomenon called ‘anomalous resistivity’ that allows reconnection to occur at a much faster rate than in an MHD formulation. In the ideal MHD case [which is not realized in Nature] reconnection cannot occur.
What Alfven was rejecting were some misuses of the concept, not the concept itself.
But again, all of this is just fluff serving to obscure the wrong idea of there somehow being much more energy flowing to us that we can observe [but that somehow, nevertheless, influences the climate].
Re: Leif Svalgaard (05:22:20)
Research takes priority over fruitless online exchanges. (Fruitful online exchanges, by sharp contrast, spark creativity.)
I hope your research is going well. (Society is depending on you – I wish you efficiency.)
Paul Vaughan (17:21:14) :
Research takes priority over fruitless online exchanges. (Fruitful online exchanges, by sharp contrast, spark creativity.)
So you are back to your old modus operandi. Try a fruitful exchange, for a change, and enlighten me what ‘central thesis’ I had missed or misunderstood. Remember, I feel some responsibility for her work, having served as a reviewer of several papers [and rejected some – perhaps underservedly because I missed to pay attention to ‘her central thesis’ that you obviously have picked up, but refuse in good ol’e style to tell me]]
Re: Leif Svalgaard (17:28:17)
Reiterating: You misunderstand.
Perhaps there will be future opportunities to discuss this fruitfully – for example if new & important information comes to our attention.
Back to research …
Paul Vaughan (17:51:46) :
Re: Leif Svalgaard (17:28:17)
Reiterating: You misunderstand.
The proper way to deal with my misunderstanding is the tell me precisely what I misunderstood and how it should have been understood.
Re: Leif Svalgaard (18:20:38)
It is also sensible (& efficient) to let a matter go to avert dissonance.
Paul Vaughan (00:29:06) :
It is also sensible (& efficient) to let a matter go to avert dissonance.
No, this matter strikes at my integrity. It started with:
Regarding the central premise driving Dr. Charvatova’s research [considered collectively] – as I said Leif: “Anyone planning to attack it should – in fairness – first make sure they are clear on what it is.”
Now, either you tell me what it is, or you sensibly (and efficiently) retract the above statement.
“Leif, you beat me to it. I was hoping Gary would discover his error.
No chance!”
Actually I’ve designed and implemented the electronics, DSP firmware, drivers and process control software on a number of temperature apps over the years-beginning with a 500 degree C ceramic circuitboard firing furnace- variously running CPM, thru PSOS/Unix to Windows.
If I don’t know what I’m talking about a programmer(see Brinch Hansen, Scherrer or Straka), sometime “scientist” certainly does not. Scientists write the grants but engineers(often the same individual in other disciplines) do the work and the abstract need bear no certain relation to the reality.
Spare us the vaudeville act, please.
gary gulrud (06:18:41) :
Scientists write the grants but engineers(often the same individual in other disciplines) do the work and the abstract need bear no certain relation to the reality.
I take it that you are asserting that the engineers that build the SORCE TIM instrument didn’t know what they were doing either.
Leif Svalgaard (07:25:19) :
gary gulrud (06:18:41) :
Scientists write the grants but engineers(often the same individual in other disciplines) do the work and the abstract need bear no certain relation to the reality.
An important element of the TIM design is that the instrument cavity is kept at a constant temperature [31C] and has very high thermal conductivity.The Electrical Substitution Radiometers are thermally conductive cavities with high absorptivity across the entire solar spectrum, which ensures collection of nearly all the entering sunlight, converting it into thermal energy in the cavity. The very high conductivity quickly [reacting to changes in 2 seconds] transports the thermal energy to the sensors that maintain constant temperature and thus thermal equilibrium at all times. The cavities are small [size of your thumb weighing less than 16 gram] and the thermal fluctuations from the set point temperature are very small [of the order of a millionth of a degree]. If you study the engineering specs carefully, you cannot deny that there are all reasons to expect an accurate measurement. And that is what I was referring to.
James: Welcome to the club.
You might start by acknowledging that there are a lot of physics neophytes out here (like me, for instance) who are just trying to learn something.
Why not make a distinction between what you know (and giving attribution), what is theoretical, and your pet theories (whicy you may identify as “my pet theories.”)
Hope this helps.