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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
An obituary / requiem for the cancelled NASA moon project
I think that we need to take a step back and look at the big picture. We don’t understand how the sun works, we don’t understand how the clouds work, we barely understand how the oceans work and volcanic activity is a complete wild card. Our understanding of Earth’s climate system is rudimentary at best.
We have 130 years of highly suspect surface temperature data and 31 years of reasonably accurate satellite data, on an approximately 4,500,000,000 year old planet. Our understanding of the history of Earth’s climate system and its average temperature is rudimentary at best.
Based on our limited understanding of Earth’s climate system, any predictions about Earth’s climate system and the long term trajectory of its average temperature are, at best, educated guesses. We are still learning how to accurately measure Earth’s temperature, much less accurately predict it 50 – 100 years into the future. Those who claim to be able to accurately predict the long term trajectory and likely future state of Earth’s average temperature, are either deluding themselves, or lying.
Just The Facts (22:22:03)
Dr. Tony Phillips isn’t a forecaster, he is the production editor of SpaceWeather.com I don’t think he embellishes anything but does work with the person behind the story somewhat, to help convey the meaning to the general public. Dr. Phillips is only the messenger…
Leif,
Re: Your talk at Solar Cycle Prediction at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, AZ. [ http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle.pdf ]
In your CONCLUSION you quoted Agnes M. Clerke, A Popular History of Astronomy During the Nineteenth Century, page 163, 4th edition, A. & C.
Black, London, 1902. as follows:
“It cannot be said that much progress has been made towards the disclosure of the cause, or causes, of the sun-spot cycle. Most thinkers on this difficult subject provide a quasi-explanation of the periodicity through certain assumed vicissitudes affecting internal processes. In all these theories, however, the course of transition is arbitrarily arranged to suit a period, which imposes itself as a fact peremptorily claiming admittance, while obstinately defying explanation”
There has been since 1902 a +100 years of more observations, with increasing detection/instrumentation technology. In the most recent decades satellites where added to study of the sun. Many more minds have looked at the solar dynamics.
Leif, so, are you suggesting that in 2010 after the vast increase in data since 1902 we still await a validated theory of solar dynamics that was lacking in 1902?
What are the 2010 front runner theories?
John
There’s an interesting TV series on the Solar System just started on BBC2 in the UK, presented by Professor Brian Cox. In the first instalment, Empire of the Sun, http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qyxfb, 18minutes in, he introduces the work of Argentinean astrophysicist, Pablo JD Mauas, linking the flow of water in the Amazonian Iguazu and Parana Rivers to sunspots. The graph of sunspot activity versus river flow seems to show a remarkable correlation since 1904.
Cox states that as the suns nuclear reactor burns at a steady rate he’s unable to account for the linkage. I don’t know whether Cox intended it, but it’s remarkable evidence of natural climate change and maybe could be explained by Svensmarks’ cosmic rays and clouds theory
Wayne, yes me too – I’m with you on that one. Don’t trust anything that has to be plugged in, started up, cranked, switched on, or has a mouth.
O/T, but you absolutely gotta see this. An Australan emeritus professor and climate activist has lashed out at the Large Hadron Collider project calling it just a “nuclear billiards machine” and he wants the money instead given to climate scientists. He also doesn’t like money being spent on space research.
Just the highlights of his rant:
[snip] During the hour long media briefing, Lowe
•ridiculed the scientists working on the Large Hadron Collider, saying money would be better spent by climate scientists
•argued that for propaganda purposes the media should hype-up individual weather events – such as floods in Mozambique – as proof of climate change
•claimed Hurricane Katrina was clearly caused by climate change
•claimed a conspiracy of white, Anglo Celtic elderly males was behind the skeptic movement
•with NZ government social scientist Karen Cronin advocated researching how to foment enough anger in the public that governments who refused to take climate action could be “pushed out of the way” in a political upheaval
[snip]
Apparently these conversations took place in a quiet briefing for sympathetic journalists following a low-key conference to figure out how to re-hype climate change to the public
…the recordings are on Ian Wishart’s site
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2010/03/breaking-news-top-aussie-climate-scientist-goes-feral-on-skeptics-and-fellow-scientists.html
So, let me recapitulate once again:- In 2001, UNIPCC Third Assessment Report, we had a “very low level of scientific understanding” of how the effects of solar forcing worked, then again in 2007 UNIPCC Fourth Assessment Report we had moved forward to a “low level if scientific understanding! Is Dr Hathaway now subtley suggesting that we have been relegated back to having a “very low level of scientific understanding”? I just love that settled science stuff, stops people thinking too hard.
I know Leif will chastise me for it, but come on guys, I think our ancestors had better luck worshipping the dammned thing rather than trying to understand it, so far we would have fared no worse! Why do some of us celebrate the Harvest Festival? Now, where can I find a sacrificial virgin?
I like this note that appeared on another blog year ago (Mar 16, 2009)
Dr. Hathaway is the best-known and widely respected NASA scientist. His advanced prediction methodology is based on a graphic analysis, usually involves an old IHV chart and a ruler, but a book edge will do. To achieve his amazingly successful predictions, he draws a line from any peak of the chart to about +80 degrees(if a protractor available), if not, then an eye-ball estimate will do, roughly in the North-North East direction.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/images/cycle24/hathaway1_strip2.jpg
NASA’s Dr. Hathaway confirms that his method is based on the most advanced scientific research, stating that more out of date is the IHV chart (currently he favours 6 years), more accurate the prediction. He enthuses about the science involved:
“We don’t know why this works, the underlying physics is a mystery to us, but it does work”.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm
He claims a good record 12/12, but a recent peer reviewed paper agreed to give him 8/12 which makes it a respectable 66%.
His latest prediction for SC24 varies somewhere from 80 to 140. This, admittedly tiny degree of uncertainty, is not due to any problems with his advanced science theory, but to simplify process, being away from the base and since frequency of prediction had to be increased recently, he had to shift back and forth his line drawing, using the edge of an old credit card.
NASA said Dr. Hathaway is currently unavailable for an interview, since his latest work is a hash-hash job coded “Shifting Sands of Kalahari”, but a preview has been leaked to numerous websites, disguised as the well known SC24 prediction animation. A rival suggested that he is actually trekking through the Wandering Dunes of Nevada desert, looking for an inspiration for his latest estimate of SC24 ramp up. http://orhanc.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/desert-travel-walk.jpg
(signed radun)
savethesharks (23:03:42) :
I agree. This is science. One tries to theorize over what one observes. And modify along the way when new observations makes new inputs.
NASA needs to focus on the Sun, and in-out radiaton to-from the Earth. As seen from space.
NASA needs to distance themselves from Earth-bound sciences like what Hansen is doing.
Otherwise they will destroy the publics thrust in NASA.
Which is already on a decline.
We have 2 options.
1-) Wait about 86 years or so, study the sun as much as possible in the meantime.
2-) Immediately commence a hydrogen trading scheme. You just can’t keep burning up all that hydrogen and not expect anything to happen.
Re James (22:40:27) :
The sun’s conveyor belt is at it’s highest levels in recorded history! It could be we have past the point of no return and we are in for a devastating period of runaway solar conveyor belt change.
—
Please don’t mention runaway conveyor belts in the context of large amounts of energetic plasma. When conveyor belts snap or buckle, bad things tend to happen. A repeat of the Carrington event now would be bad enough :p
(thanks again to Leif et al for reading suggestions. The sun is a truly fascinating beast)
– Great Conveyor Belt (a.k.a. “meridianal flow”)
Meridianal flow was analysed in order to explain its relationship to the strength of magnetic Polar Field. PF is used, by one or two most respected solar scientists of the day, to predict maxima of the forthcoming cycles.
In this respect notable are works by two well known research centres:
Hulburt Center for Space Research, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington
by Wang , Lean and Sheeley
and
Max-Planck-Institut from Germany
by S. K. Solanki- I. Baumann – D. Schmitt – M. Schüssler
Results of their theoretical research are summarised graphically as shown in here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC17.htm
Two relevant papers are:
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/full/2004/42/aa1024/aa1024.right.html
and
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-4357/577/1/L53/16614.text.html#tb1
Steve Goddard,
You said:
More from Hathaway’s 2006 article. His numbers are off by more than order of magnitude from what he is saying now.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm
Normally, the conveyor belt moves about 1 meter per second—walking pace,” says Hathaway. “That’s how it has been since the late 19th century.” In recent years, however, the belt has decelerated to 0.75 m/s in the north and 0.35 m/s in the south. “We’ve never seen speeds so low.”
My reply:
What he is saying is actually factually correct. If I am not mistaken, he is refering to the drift velocity of the sunspots which he believes are tied to the motion at the bottom of the conveyor belt. This motion from the polar regions to the Solar Equator is typically ~ 1m/sec. This needs to be compared with the surface flow back to poles from the Equator, which typically takes place at ~ 10m/sec.
The simple reason for the difference in flow speeds is density. It is
density x velocity which must remain roughly the same in order to mainatin a steady mass flux around the conveyor belt.
Hence, the high density at the base of the Sun’s convective layer means that the flow has to be slower in order to maintain the same mass flux.
” 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.””
Once the sun was green and full of water. But the Sun people started burning fossil fuels. Soon the greenhouse effect made the sun hotter and hotter, so hot that the Sun people stayed in their sun cities and equipped them with huge A/C units. The exhaust heat from these fusion driven units was so hot that it was pure plasma and the sun became hotter still.
Today we can see the cities of the Sun people as sunspots. They float on the molten surface of the sun and are sometimes drawn back into the depth of the Sun only to reappear several decades later at a different place.
Bang bang you’re dead brush your teeth and go to bed…
Just the facts: Notice if anyone will take note. This is the type of responses that we need It does list in detail that NASA is not very professional in this area anyway… Any organization that is unable to eject J Hansen cannot be professional
@Philip T. Downman (21:38:02)
————————————————————-
He said the exact opposite less than four years ago.
————————————————————-
“But for a scientist that’s exactly the right thing to do if he has been proven wrong, isn’t it?”
If he accepted the fact that he _could_ be wrong in both cases: yes
If he rang the alarm bell in both cases (stephen S., was iceage alarm – now we al gonna burn): no
Leif @ur momisugly 21:45:36 Thanks.
Bill Parsons @ur momisugly 22:02:51 I’m impressed.
================
I’m kinda lost here. I read that entire article twice and never saw the word “robust”. I’m not sure what to make of this. Without something being robust, I don’t really know what to do.
I got no qualms with Hathaway being wrong on previous occasions….. Science is about being wrong, usually more times than you are right…. Disproving hypothesis’s and changing to another hypothesis to explain observations is what scientists do.
… at least he isn’t discarding data so that his hypothesis or predictions remains intact…. That’s what we’ve all been whinging about with the AGW’ers.
I applaud his continued enthusiasm for his chosen field… Must be an exciting time now, with a new satellite up an’ all:-)
Where’s the Coriolis force in all this?
Where’s a current on (in) a spherical body, there’s Coriolis force, I learned in Physics.
And what would/could Coriolis force add to this matter?
From the number of different predictions about the solar cycle on Leif’s presentation it looks like no one really has a clue! Maybe it’s chaotic like the climate? And they’re trying to tell us that they can model chaos?
If the plasma is moving with a greater momentum would that make it less vulnerable to the formation of sunspots?
I do not have any problem with the Science behind Hathaway, only the sensational way it is reported.
It appears to me someone “Lisa Rightmire, a student of Hathaway from the University of Memphis” has finally done what should have been done all along and it has made their previous work and pronouncements look foolish.
I vividly recall as a second year geology student, ‘Lo, all those years ago’, – 42 actually, – writing as part of a response to a question on a solar cause for the Pleistocene Ice Ages, “The Sun’s energy output is relatively constant and not variable enough to cause or end an Ice Age. Solar physics are well understood.”
I blush to recall the casual certainty of that answer, but I was repeating the “Consensus” at the time as it was taught to me. It seems that the more we know, it shows us how little we know.
Perhaps the Sun is a barely perceptible variable star on a scale of centuries ?.