From NASA News: Solar ‘Current of Fire’ Speeds Up
What in the world is the sun up to now?
In today’s issue of Science, NASA solar physicist David Hathaway reports that the top of the sun’s Great Conveyor Belt has been running at record-high speeds for the past five years.
“I believe this could explain the unusually deep solar minimum we’ve been experiencing,” says Hathaway. “The high speed of the conveyor belt challenges existing models of the solar cycle and it has forced us back to the drawing board for new ideas.”
The Great Conveyor Belt is a massive circulating current of fire (hot plasma) within the sun. It has two branches, north and south, each taking about 40 years to complete one circuit. Researchers believe the turning of the belt controls the sunspot cycle.
Above: An artist’s concept of the sun’s Great Conveyor Belt. [larger image]
Hathaway has been monitoring the conveyor belt using data from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO). The top of the belt skims the surface of the sun, sweeping up knots of solar magnetism and carrying them toward the poles. SOHO is able to track those knots—Hathaway calls them “magnetic elements”–and thus reveal the speed of the underlying flow.
“It’s a little like measuring the speed of a river on Earth by clocking the leaves and twigs floating downstream,” Hathaway explains.SOHO’s dataset extends all the way back to 1996 and spans a complete solar cycle. Last year, Lisa Rightmire, a student of Hathaway from the University of Memphis, spent the entire summer measuring magnetic elements. When she plotted their speeds vs. time, she noticed how fast the conveyor belt has been going.
A note about “fast”: The Great Conveyor Belt is one of the biggest things in the whole solar system and by human standards it moves with massive slowness. “Fast” in this context means 10 to 15 meters per second (20 to 30 miles per hour). A good bicyclist could easily keep up.
Below: The velocity of the Great Conveyor Belt (a.k.a. “meridianal flow”) since 1996. Note the higher speeds after ~2004. credit: Hathaway and Rightmire, 2010. [larger image]
The speed-up was surprising on two levels.
First, it coincided with the deepest solar minimum in nearly 100 years, contradicting models that say a fast-moving belt should boost sunspot production. The basic idea is that the belt sweeps up magnetic fields from the sun’s surface and drags them down to the sun’s inner dynamo. There the fields are amplified to form the underpinnings of new sunspots. A fast-moving belt should accelerate this process.
So where have all the sunspots been? The solar minimum of 2008-2009 was unusually deep and now the sun appears to be on the verge of a weak solar cycle.
Instead of boosting sunspots, Hathaway believes that a fast-moving Conveyor Belt can instead suppress them “by counteracting magnetic diffusion at the sun’s equator.” He describes the process in detail in Science (“Variations in the Sun’s Meridional Flow over a Solar Cycle,” 12 March 2010, v327, 1350-1352).
The second surprise has to do with the bottom of the Conveyor Belt.
SOHO can only clock the motions of the visible top layer. The bottom is hidden by ~200,000 kilometers of overlying plasma. Nevertheless, an estimate of its speed can be made by tracking sunspots.
“Sunspots are supposedly rooted to the bottom of the belt,” says Hathaway. “So the motion of sunspots tells us how fast the belt is moving down there.”
He’s done that—plotted sunspot speeds vs. time since 1996—and the results don’t make sense. “While the top of the conveyor belt has been moving at record-high speed, the bottom seems to be moving at record-low speed. Another contradiction.”
Above: An artist’s concept of the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO). Launched in Feb. 2010, SDO will be able to look inside the sun to study the conveyor belt in greater detail, perhaps solving the mysteries Hathaway and Rightmire have uncovered. [larger image]
Could it be that sunspots are not rooted to the bottom of the Conveyor Belt, after all? “That’s one possibility” he notes. “Sunspots could be moving because of dynamo waves or some other phenomenon not directly linked to the belt.”
What researchers really need is a good look deep inside the sun. NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory, launched in February 2010, will provide that when its instruments come online later this year. SDO is able to map the sun’s interior using a technique called helioseismology. SOHO can do the same thing, but not well enough to trace the Great Conveyor Belt all the way around. SDO’s advanced sensors might reveal the complete circuit.
And then…? “It could be the missing piece we need to forecast the whole solar cycle,” says Hathaway.
Stay tuned for that.
StarBP (12:00:03) :
Thanks, I stand corrected.
Interesting on your ‘tipping point’ reference… this probably begs to be re-examined given who was running the GCM. What say you?
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/Toba6revised.pdf
In the only general circulation model (GCM) simulation of the response to Toba so far, Jones et al. [2005] calculated the climate response to a stratospheric loading 100 times that of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo, but with the same timing as that of the Pinatubo eruption. They found a very large climate system response, with a maximum global-average cooling of 10 K. But the climate system started to warm back up in a few years, and the cooling was only about 2 K after a decade with no indication of the initiation of an ice age.
….
Jones et al. [2005] assumed that the SO2
emission from Toba was 100 times that of Pinatubo, but other estimates put it closer to 300 times Pinatubo [Bekki et al., 1996; Oppenheimer, 2002].
RayG (23:14:27) :
” I am sure that we will find that we have to produce a plan for Solar Climate Control to prevent anthropogenic solar warming involving transfer of trillions of dollars to Martians and Venusians”
Yes. We will need to as they will be under severe threat of a forced anomalous radiation trend
Ed Murphy (17:26:48) :
Interesting on your ‘tipping point’ reference… this probably begs to be re-examined given who was running the GCM. What say you?
There are many things the models leave out. The Earth usually compensates by reducing cloud cover, but during a solar minimum these compensations are suppressed by increased cosmic rays. A VEI-8 eruption by itself would likely not initiate the sequence. However, such an eruption near the beginning or middle of a solar Grand Minimum would likely be able to do so if the Milankovitch cycles are at least slightly favorable. Also, Toba erupted during a glacial period. The tipping point had already been reached ~40 kyr before the eruption, and a VEI-8 volcano combined with solar and orbital cycles is definitely not enough to set off the second tipping point (which was last set off ~750Ma BP).
Also….don’t forget one of the foremost sea level experts in the world who is saying…..hell no.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/MornerInterview.pdf
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/images/stories/pdf/maldives-Morner.pdf
And his letter to the president of the Maldives….lol.
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=240:morner-letter-21-10-09&catid=14:text
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Lief
Not only does my analysis provides a perfect explanation for the Faint Young Sun Paradox, it steps beyond illusional efforts to fit the phantoms of what is today for conceived of as independently scattered gravity bound bodies that too often sabotage the quality of thought for the big bang is real theorists; an ideology that is only suitable as a model for identifying the components and formulaic interactions and processes of the time of creation was NEVER 0 .
As I said http://www.leif.org does present excellent investigations detailing the surface events occurring on the sun
Though now I am more interested reading about the edies of transport on its spiral
andy adkins (19:48:38) :
Not only does my analysis provides a perfect explanation for the Faint Young Sun Paradox, it steps beyond illusional efforts
I must admit that you leave me behind in the dust. I have no idea what you are talking about, it makes no sense at all to me.
There’s more of you than meets the eye!
StarBP (18:44:38) :
Well I’m still learning, maybe Leif will assist us?
From the Toba6revised.pdf I posted, the glaciation stage of the last ice age soon followed the Toba eruption, not preceded it. But what the authors want to say is that Toba did not cause the build up of the ice. Even though the climate was poised to cool dramatically anyway because of Malankovitch cycle progression. Not enough to go on for them to push [Sagan et al., 1979] aside just yet.
The Earth usually compensates by reducing cloud cover, but during a solar minimum these compensations are suppressed by increased cosmic rays.
In my opinion only the Sun TSI and a lack of larger volcano eruption (over a period of around 4-5 years) can significantly reduce cloud cover. Earth has no way to figure out how to compensate. I’m with Leif, that increased cosmic rays probably don’t increase cloud cover, and I’m with him on this graph he carries around. Maybe we’re on different graphs.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/MilankovitchCyclesOrbitandCores.png
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=ah63dzac
fred houpt (10:20:51) :
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=ah63dzac
Is pure, unadulterated, sheer, and breathtaking nonsense.
Ed Murphy (00:08:08) :
the glaciation stage of the last ice age soon followed the Toba eruption
Whatever Toba did was on a time scale much shorter than a glaciation and there are many other glaciations showing similar growth/decline without a convenient Toba.
James Evans,
You wanted me to respond to Smokey’s “data points”, well let’s just take one of them, here:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Sea_Level_Holgate.jpg
What exactly am I supposed to respond to with this type of “data point”, it is a graph, pulled from what data?, sitting on a AGW skeptics web site? How was this data gathered and who gathered? Who checked the data? Was the data peer reviewed?
I refuse to waste my time in responding to “data” that has very little background or backup. Much of the links Sparkey gives are exactly like that. I’d like to see published, peer reviewed research, with lengthy analysis…then I’ll gladly respond, and who knows…even change my mind!
andy adkins (19:08:34) :
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/23dec_voyager.htm
Voyager Makes an Interstellar Discovery
12.23.2009
December 23, 2009: The solar system is passing through an interstellar cloud that physics says should not exist. In the Dec. 24th issue of Nature, a team of scientists reveal how NASA’s Voyager spacecraft have solved the mystery.
~
An interstellar cloud that wasn’t supposed to be there? Hmm used to say the heliosphere was still about 10,000 years out from it. Then they thought sooner and now it’s um well maybe we enter the next cloud tomorrow? Now its maybe the Local Bubble isn’t as warm as previously thought, and gee what is heating it anyway?
Ok, so much for the Group W chatter.
This may help to enhance some of our current understanding of interstellar clouds and galactic magnetic field reconnection (although on the latter we are still aways out) with these two articles.
The trouble with the Local Bubble
Barry Y. Welsh · Robin L. Shelton
Received: 18 March 2009 / Accepted: 29 May 2009 / Published online: 17 June 2009
© The Author(s) 2009. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Abstract Themodel of a Local Hot Bubble has been widely
accepted as providing a framework that can explain the ubiquitous
presence of the soft X-ray background diffuse emission.
We summarize the current knowledge on this local interstellar
region, paying particular reference to observations
that sample emission from the presumed local million degree
K hot plasma. However, we have listed numerous observations
that are seemingly in conflict with the concept of
a hot Local Bubble. In particular, the discovery of solar wind
charge exchange that can generate an appreciable soft X-ray
background signal within the heliosphere, has led to a reassessment
of the generally accepted model that requires a
hot local plasma.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/y6j6220q61850012/fulltext.pdf
Our understanding of heliospheric reconnection continues..
THE VECTOR DIRECTION OF THE INTERSTELLAR MAGNETIC FIELD OUTSIDE THE HELIOSPHERE
M. Swisdak et al 2010 ApJ 710 1769-1775 doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/
ABSTRACT. We propose that magnetic reconnection at the heliopause (HP) only occurs where the interstellar magnetic field points nearly anti-parallel to the heliospheric field. By using large-scale magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations of the heliosphere to provide the initial conditions for kinetic simulations of HP reconnection, we show that the energetic pickup ions downstream from the solar wind termination shock induce large diamagnetic drifts in the reconnecting plasma and stabilize non-anti-parallel reconnection. With this constraint, the MHD simulations can show where HP reconnection most likely occurs. We also suggest that reconnection triggers the 2-3 kHz radio bursts that emanate from near the HP. Requiring the burst locations to coincide with the loci of anti-parallel reconnection allows us to determine, for the first time, the vector direction of the local interstellar magnetic field. We find it to be oriented toward the southern solar magnetic pole.
Print publication: Issue 2 (2010 February 20)
Received 2009 August 10, accepted for publication 2010 January 12
Published 2010 February 2
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0004-637X/710/2/1769
Moving on .. we are ..
Carla (14:57:58) : Your comment is awaiting moderation
..We propose that magnetic reconnection at the heliopause (HP) only occurs where the interstellar magnetic field points nearly anti-parallel to the heliospheric field.
..we show that the energetic pickup ions downstream from the solar wind termination shock induce large diamagnetic drifts in the reconnecting plasma and stabilize non-anti-parallel reconnection.
..for the first time, the vector direction of the local interstellar magnetic field. We find it to be oriented toward the southern solar magnetic pole.
Chomp chomp crunch cruch good stuff Maynard. Ways to go yet, ..yeah sure.
“””We find it to be oriented toward the southern solar magnetic pole.”””
Rolling Stones, “She’s so Cold.”
Leif, you may interesting that they discovered in Xray site lines, of N. Heliospere,, solar wind charge exchange contamination of the the data. This was telling them the local bubble was hotter than it really is. hmm were they looking North on the ram side of the heliosphere?
3 Ramifications for the ‘accepted local hot bubble
model’
It is clear from the preceding sections that several important
problems plague the traditional model of the Local Hot
Bubble. The most important of these is the contamination
by solar wind charge exchange X-rays. The predicted severity
of the 1/4 and 3/4 keV X-ray contamination by this
heliospherically generated emission for low latitude sightlines
ranges from ∼ 1/2 in the model of Robertson and
Cravens (2003) to approximately 100% from the calculations
of Koutroumpa et al. (2009). Thus, new models of the
local region range from those that are ∼ 1/2 as bright in Xrays
as the traditional Local Hot Bubble models to those that
have no local hot gas in the Galactic plane. In either case, the
model must include X-ray producing gas located at high latitudes
because solar wind charge exchange models cannot
explain all of the observed high latitude X-ray emission. In
this subsection, we consider the first case in which the Local
Hot Bubble is half as bright in the plane as previously
believed. In the following section, we consider the other extreme,
that in which gas in the local ISM produces none of
the soft X-rays seen at low latitudes.
Firstly, if emission from a Local Hot Bubble is diminished
relative to traditional models, it is diminished at all latitudes
by a similar amount (∼330×10−6 counts s−1 arcsec−2
in the ROSAT 1/4 keV band) according to Koutroumpa et al.
(2008a). Subtracting a constant intensity from the observed
anisotropic distribution of locally produced X-rays leaves
a more extremely anisotropic distribution of X-rays which
can then be attributed to the Local Hot Bubble. If we make
the standard assumption that the X-ray emissivity is constant
throughout this emitting region, then the Local Hot
Bubble must be extremely distorted, with strong lobes in the
northern and southern hemispheres and a tight waist in the
Galactic plane. Secondly, the model solar wind charge exchange
spectra are harder than the observed spectrum. We
conclude this because the solar wind charge exchange predictions
of Koutroumpa et al. account for a greater fraction
of the observed X-rays in the 1/4 keV band than in theWisconsin
B band (130 to 188 eV). In order to compensate for
the hardness of the solar wind charge exchange spectrum,
the Local Hot Bubble spectrum must be softer than previously
believed. Thus, the local emitting plasma would need
to be cooler than previously believed.
Any revisions to the X-ray brightness and temperature
require that the electron density be recalculated. If the temperature
and path length are unaffected, then a reduction in
the Local Hot Bubble emission intensity by a factor of 2
would imply a reduction in the electron density by a factor
of 1/√2, resulting in ne ∼ 0.005 cm−3. This serves as
a reasonable starting point. However, once the solar wind
charge exchange contamination is better understood, this estimate
can be improved upon by an improved derivation of
the temperature of the Local Hot Bubble plasma (and thus
the emissivity) and the intensity of Local Hot Bubble X-rays
in the direction of MBM12. Because the electron density
and temperature are less than previously believed, the thermal
pressure must also be less. The reduction in the electron
density by 1/√2 alone, brings the estimated thermal pressure
down from 12,250 Kcm−3 to ∼ 8,700 Kcm−3. Any
revision to the local plasma temperature will lower the gas
pressure further.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/y6j6220q61850012/fulltext.pdf
R Gates:
1.6 mm/year in http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038720.shtml
1.8 mm/year in http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext?ID=122683866&CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
According to the IPCC, the long run rise is 1.8mm/year Don’t you think it is odd that you would use a statistically insignificant short term rise in (adjusted) satellite readings for sea level (essentially 1993-2003) while complaining when skeptics do the same thing with temperature?
Here’s a weighted average from tidal gauges 1.1 mm/year in http://www.burtonsys.com/climategate/global_msl_trend_analysis.html
I found this interesting posting from October 2009…
David Hathaway: Mea Culpa
http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/2009/10/31/david-hathaway-mea-culpa/
“I have no doubt at this point that it’s going to be a little cycle. My current prediction is that it’s going to be about half of what we’ve seen in the last four solar cycles or so. But in my gut, I feel it’s going to be smaller than that! (laughs)”
He also gives kudos to Leif
Carla (17:42:18) :
Leif, you may interesting that they discovered in Xray site lines, of N. Heliospere
We are learning more and more about the local medium, but all of this has no effect on anything on Earth [as far as I can tell]. We once thought that the Galactic field could be influencing the inner heliosphere http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/186/4158/51
But we don’t believe that anymore, now that we have a lot more knowledge of both the Heliosphere and the Interstellar medium. It is like what you can read on ancient maps [at least on one :-)] “there be dragons here”. We have gone there, and no dragons. http://www.maphist.nl/extra/herebedragons.html
Well thanks Leif, fire breathing dragons heating the local cavity. I thought from the article that galactic rain had some potential, (they are not exactly sure where the old pressumed heat was coming from anyway.)
But if it makes you happy I can attach a few dragons to the edge of the heliospheres map.
Apparently some pretty extreme contamination from solar wind charge exchange, up to half of the brightness (which was implying hot cavity) in some areas. Which of course leads them to believe the cavity that surrounds the heliosphere is warmer than what it is in reality. Ok yeah no big deal.
Changes all around in what we perceive to be truth.
Leif: Don’t know if you are still coming back to this thread. But….i’ve another stupid question: Assuming the cosmic wave background, which is near the outer boundary shock wave of the bigbang, is travelling away from us at presumably near the speed of light, then any photon radiating from that material back towards us wouid be travelling at the actual speed of light for a net speed of 10 M.P.H. or so?
johnnythelowery (20:26:57) :
Assuming the cosmic wave background, which is near the outer boundary shock wave of the bigbang, is travelling away from us at presumably near the speed of light
Towards us at precisely the speed of light.
so?
No, for the above reason. And you can add or subtract as much as you want to/from the speed of light, the result is still the speed of light.
R. Gates (12:03:37):
So out of the dozen or more links I’ve provided, you picked one to complain about: Holgate’s chart.
Sorry you’re not up to speed on Dr Simon Holgate, he’s peer reviewed and has been around a long time. I’m not surprised you don’t understand that his chart simply shows predictable natural variability.
When you stop cherry-picking the Arctic, and pretending that neither the Antarctic nor Global ice extent matters… wake me.
In the mean time, more natural variability: click
could you explain this part of the graphic in any more detail for a science neophyte?
What do you mean by “differential rotation of the magnetic field”?
Why are the lines of flow of the “conveyor belt” only on one side of the sun?
Bill Parsons (09:58:54) :
What do you mean by “differential rotation of the magnetic field”?
The Sun rotates faster at the Equator [and low latitudes, generally], and the magnetic field is thus dragged along and will therefore be ‘wound up’. The ‘bump’ is the first sign of the winding.
Why are the lines of flow of the “conveyor belt” only on one side of the sun?
Because it is a ‘cut out’ of the Sun. Rest assured, it wraps all the way around.
Oh, so you need 3-d glasses to look at this picture and nobody told me. Great!
Are the directions of the arrows supposed to be equator-ward in the parts of the loops near the surface of the sun? So magnetic charges get carried along the surface toward the equator?