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.
I think David Hathaway should be commended for not lacing his artcle with agenda but instead added the proper ‘might’, ‘could’, and ‘possibly’s. That read more as proper science article about a question.
I wonder if this might be looked at from another perspective. Could the conveyors have a normal speed of ~12.5 m/s as it was holding in the months in 2008-2009 when there were no sunpots at all (look closely at the graph) and any deviation from this tends to slow or speed the normal advance. Could you follow that? Maybe the conveyor free-idles at ~12.5 m/s, all others readings are showing forces slowing or speeding it from that idle speed. All data points at spotless months seem to show that onesingle speed. That’s curious.
and tell me what reason I would have to doubt that the AGW hypothesis is correct?
You also need to show that it is significant, and run-away and a bad thing. Merely proving that AGW exists, per se, is not enough to justify any action based on it. I will accept GW, but not talk or run-away acceleration or tipping points.
And while you accept that errors have been made in the past, you do not seem to accept that any more errors will turn up.
There is some evidence against warming, because non-“adjusted” temperatures are not accelerating up. Take away the satellite measurements, and what solid proof of warming is there? Antarctic ice and Arctic ice are not proving terribly decisive one way or another.
If those satellite values that prove we are at a hottest point are, in fact, in error (or true but irrelevant), then the whole of AGW pretty much crumbles.
kirkmyers (19:44:49) :
…
Let’s start at the beginning. CO2 molecules capture a small portion of surface energy and transfer this energy to the other gas molecules in the atmosphere. Some of this energy escapes into space and the rest finds its way back to the surface, where it’s eventually re-radiated.
Note that CO2 doesn’t actually retain energy; it acts only to transfer captured energy to the other molecules in the atmosphere through collisions. In short, the greenhouse effect of CO2, even at concentrations well below current levels, is energy-limited and not concentration-limited.
…
I’m so glad you made that point. It is one aspect of radiative transfer I see miss stated many times. That’s a good proper explanation and key to proper understanding of how the atmosphere works.
And I take the ‘energy-limited’ means the speed is limited at which a given amount of energy can move through a given amount of the gas and re-distributed to other molecules. The admittance is finite. Right? Is admittance the correct property?
Richard Holle (20:11:02) :
I have yet to see a raw, rural dataset of sufficient length (>3 PDO’s) that shows a true warming signal. The null hypothesis remains.
As for Deep Solar Minimums, it goes like this: Flashing lights as the latest pull on a slot machine gets a jackpot. Without knowing what denomination of machine is at hand, # of coins inserted, wheels in play and the jackpot type, tell me what the payoff is.
But this much is rather obvious: A trace gas in the atmosphere holds as much weight as hitching the wagon to delta TSI.
kirkmyers (19:44:49) :
No, the term is definitely not admittance. Should have taken the time to open my book.
kirkmyers (19:44:49) :
WELL SAID!
But don’t worry…if that is the best RGates can do [pretty pathetic proffer: “AGW models predicted this” etc. ad nauseum]….then his posts are a good example of that little problem Darwin was talking about…
Next slide, please.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Leif Svalgaard (20:37:26)
I am aware of that,the distinction is necessary for either radiative reasons or aeronomy calculations,and the absorption lines etc.
In Krivova et al reconstruction of spectral irradiance fig7e and f we can see a decrease in the h20 band in the early seventies,and little decrease in the h20/co2 overlap bands.
At present say the spectra I mentioned above,in the descending phase of sc23 these spectra have increased slightly then stabilized,
Regarding “CO2 absorption”: Here is a statement by Dr. Pierre Latour, PhD and PE in chemical engineering and PE in process control engineering, which appeared in an opinion column in the February issue of Hydrocarbon Processing magazine:
“CO2 only absorbs and emits specific spectral wavelengths (14.77 microns) that constitute a tiny fraction of solar radiation energy in Earth’s atmosphere. The first 50 ppm of CO2 absorbs about half of this tiny energy, each additional 50 ppm absorbs half of the remaining tiny fraction, so at the current 380 ppm there are almost no absorbable photons left. CO2 could triple to 1000 ppm with no additional discernable absorption-emission.”
When it comes to “global warming,” CO2 is an innocent bystander.
StarBP (20:05:39) :
Leif, can you give any feedback on this?
Although we think we can predict the gross features of the next cycle we don’t know the details, so I can’t place much credence on any detailed predictions, but times are interesting for sure.
Much like explaining the operation of a plasma focus device without bringing electricity into the model.
Anna v
In any case, the only true climate prophecy is that “an ice age is coming” maybe in 100 years, maybe in 1000 but the clockwork of the Vostock data shows that it will come. So, if humans are not blown up in a nuclear catastrophe, or an asteroid does not hit earth, they should be planning for an ice age…
I do believe though that there should be geo engineering studies for the case of an ice age coming. A volcano explosion could trigger it at any time.
While it could take as much as 80,000 years or so for the next ice age to fully bottom out, a VEI 7 or P eruption would vastly accelerate the progression. A series of relatively close VEI 4, 5 & 6 eruptions would make for a very harsh and catastrophic downward spike.
Just look at what Redoubt did for cooling things down in 2009/2010, blowing to little over 12 miles high and following with more than a dozen similarly high eruptions. Sarychev soon followed and made its contribution. Those were on the heels of Okmok and Kasatochi in the northern hemisphere. A few years of no larger eruptions would be ok with me.
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm
@JMANON (05:49:58) :
“We can’t survive “warm is bad” and any effective intervention that can only reduce temperatures but not elevate them could be the end of us all.”
– – – – – – – –
You make many good points. We also cannot survive “greenhouse gases = pollution”.
If CO2 is pollution, then water vapor is also pollution, only thirty-fold. Where does the insanity stop? It doesn’t.
A case in point, Nathan Myhrvold (formerly the Chief Technology Officer at Microsoft) proposes pumping SO2 into the upper atmosphere to mitigate global warming. He doesn’t appear to have any concern about pumping a true pollutant into the air (to offset the alleged effects of the other “pollutant” CO2).
Video here:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/12/20/gps.climate.change.cnn?iref=allsearch
I viewed the material safety data sheets (MSDS) for sulfur dioxide. SO2 truly is a pollutant that has adverse health effects on the eyes, skin and lungs when exposure occurs. See the EPA site to see what they say about SO2.
http://www.epa.gov/air/sulfurdioxide/
Leif,
Regardless the L & P is a theory until proven. I do think it does explain many past events.
Leif,
Thanks for resolving my earlier questions. But the question is — why does the Sun’s surface plasma appear to be moving faster than the return flow far below the surface? Could this result from compression of the plasma gases down below caused by
sun’s gravity acting on the mass of the the gases above? And because the plasma traveling near the Sun’s core has a much shorter route to go (Pi X R/2) in returning to the vicinity of the equator, shouldn’t one expect it to be traveling much more slowly than the stuff on the surface?
Could fabrication of a big sunspot at the surface be encouraged by a rotating hurricane-like surface storm in the plasma created by a Coriolis effect?
Ed Murphy (07:47:37) :
a VEI 7 or P eruption would vastly accelerate the progression.
Look at the site again. “P” refers to “unknown magnitude”. Due to modern instruments, a VEI-P eruption will never occur again. Also, there is a level 8 on the scale. No VEI-8 eruption has occurred in the last 75,000 years. Although I do not believe the 2012 doomsday theories in the least, it is interesting to note that the movie 2012 did not mention anything about the cold summers and winters after the Yellowstone eruption depicted in the film. The film also did not discuss the theory that a few very cold summers in a row (which a VEI-8 eruption would almost definitely cause) during a mildly favorable Milankovich period, combined with a grand solar minimum for the 20 years afterward, may trigger the “tipping point” that has caused that last few glacial periods.
Mooloo said:
“Take away the satellite measurements, and what solid proof of warming is there? Antarctic ice and Arctic ice are not proving terribly decisive one way or another.”
First, why would you want to take away one of the most powerful scientific tools we have in the satellite data? Second, we have lot’s of proof even without satellites, from rising oceans to melting permafrost. Just ask the folks who live in N. Alaska. The melting permafrost is directly related to the warmer temps in the area and you don’t need satellites to see it…just look at the buckling roads and collapsing houses…the permafrost is melting.
Secondly, you say the arctic sea ice is not being terribly decisive? How about 6 years without a positive sea ice anomaly? How is that not being decisive?
Look, I’m not out to convince anyone of anything, but I am out to know the truth, or lack thereof, about AGWT. I am a 75% believer in AGW, meaning I suppose that I am a 30% skeptic. I could become a 50% or more skeptic, if shown facts as to why I should. So far, I’ve only seen recycled arguments from the AGW skeptic group, which focus more on personal attacks on scientists or exaggerating the importance of those errors that have been made. For example, it matters not one bit to me whether glaciers in Asia are going to be gone in 25 years or 200 years…the direction of the change is what it important…they are melting.
AGWT makes some specific claims of measurable effects. These effects are being observed…i.e. a warming arctic, melting permafrost, loss of sea ice on a year-to-year basis, acidification of the oceans, rising sea levels, cooling of the stratosphere, etc. Competing theories (such as Dr. Nicola Scaffeta’s) also make specific claims of observable effects. If for example, 2010 turns out to be the warmest year on temperature record, it will only reinforce my belief in AGWT and be pretty damaging to Dr. Scaffeta’s theories. If global temps actually fall on average between now and 2030, it will be strong support for Dr. Scaffeta’s hypothesis and AGWT will be essentially dead.
R. Gates (12:25:35) wrote: [evidence of] “…rising oceans…”
What evidence of rising oceans?
Sea level has risen ever so gradually over the last century with even a slight decrease in that gradual rise in the last number of years. Current rate of sea level increase if continued for a century would add up to centimeters.
(Assuming for for the sake of argument those figures are accurate.)
This observation & measurement doesn’t conform to the predictions based on the computer models.
A falsification.
R. Gates, you’ll have to do better than pitching the same woo others do, to have your comments taken seriously.
I’m not an astrophysicist, but I have stirred pots of boiling water.
As the stirring increases, the boiling decreases. And why not! More mass is being transferred per unit time from the bottom heat source to the top heat release points thus dropping the temperature build up.
It seems to me that a similar process is going on with the solar conveyor belt; faster belt equals less boiling.
The question now is: why the faster belt? Could the answer be: planetary mechanics?
bob paglee (11:58:20) :
why does the Sun’s surface plasma appear to be moving faster than the return flow far below the surface?
Because the density, d, down there is much higher [10 X, say]. If you assume that the transport of mass is the same, then the mass flowing near the surface is M.surface (Volume.surface*d.surface) x speed.surface and at depth M.depth = Volume.depth*d.depth). Volume.depth is nearly the same as Volume.surface [even if the length is a bit smaller, the thickness is probably a bit larger]. So is M.surface = M.depth, the speed.depth = speed.surface * d.surface / d.depth or speed.depth = speed.surface / 10.
Charles S. Opalek, PE (13:51:47) :
The question now is: why the faster belt?
There is good evidence that solar activity [magnetic sunspots] slow down the flow. Imagine you were trying to run a Marathon on a New York sidewalk. The more people crowding the sidewalk, the slower you can run.
Charles S. Opalek, PE (13:51:47) :
The question now is: why the faster belt? Could the answer be: planetary mechanics?
~
No..
If Group W can’t have Interstellar ‘magnetic reconnection’ mechanism glitch, in triple layers, no planetary mechanics for you.
James F. Evans,
Are you saying sea levels have not risen? To call this statement of factual data a “falsification” shows the extreme nature of the true skeptics of AGW. See:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Explore this link for a brief overview, or google a thousand other links to verify sea level increases. Those who are 99% sure of their position I define as the true believers and true skeptics of AGW and neither will convince the other of anything, and since I don’t fall in either camp, I have no interest in trying to change people’s minds. I care about honest review of all the data, and when someone tells me the arctic sea ice has recovered from its negative anomaly, or that the world is actually cooling, or that we’re going to see cooling until 2030– then I say, “show me the data!”. Currently there is more data to support, rather than refute AGWT, thought there is some inconsistencies (such as the growth of the antarctic sea ice). This is why I’m only 75% convinced AGWT is correct, and not yet a true believer.
R. Gates (14:30:15):
“Those who are 99% sure of their position I define as the true believers and true skeptics of AGW and neither will convince the other of anything, and since I don’t fall in either camp, I have no interest in trying to change people’s minds.”
Wrong, bucko. Aside from the fact that skeptics have nothing to prove, you continue to ignore the numerous links I and others provide that refute your world view, putting you solidly in the 1% category.
You can change my mind by providing solid testable, transparent, empirical evidence of CAGW. If you ever do, I will sit up straight and pay attention. If your evidence withstands falsification, it will convince me.
Per your personal definition I am a true skeptic, as opposed to a true believer. As such, I like to provide more information when someone posts a single graph, expecting it to end the debate. That way, others can decide for themselves what is and isn’t factual:
First, UoC provides numerous sea level charts, and regularly re-adjusts them in subsequent releases after the fact. This blink gif gives an example: click [takes a few seconds to load]
The sea level is increasing in line with its long term trend from the LIA, and from the last great Ice Age before that: click
As we see, nothing unusual is occurring. The sea level naturally rises due to the planet’s natural warming. Satellite measurements confirm the rising sea level. But the rate turns out to be lower than predicted, as Willis Eschenbach shows: click
The late, great John Daly shows that Tasmanian sea levels have not appreciably changed since at least 1841: click
Multiple peer reviewed studies show the sea level rise is much lower than the IPCC claims: click
And Holgate shows the cyclicality of sea level changes: click
As a fan of anomalies, this chart should interest you: click
And for a comprehensive discussion of sea levels, this atlas of sea levels is must reading for anyone interested in a good long term overview: click
Since GCMs projected rapidly rising sea levels, they are once again shown to be incorrect. And if the planet should descend into another Ice Age, or even another LIA, sea levels would be expected to decline.
We are fortunate to be in a very benign climate, historically speaking. A one-third increase in CO2 has made no measurable difference in the natural, long term sea level rise, once again falsifying CAGW, as can be seen in the charts provided.
R. Gates (14:30:15) replied: “Are you saying sea levels have not risen?”
No.
This is what I stated: “Sea level has risen ever so gradually over the last century with even a slight decrease in that gradual rise in the last number of years. Current rate of sea level increase if continued for a century would add up to centimeters.”
It’s a straight-forward statement.
Either you don’t comprehend English very well (which I’m sure you do), or you wanted to twist my words a little. (Why twist at all?)
In response, please read Smokey’s (15:43:12) comment above.
Backs up my comment to a “T”.
Thanks smokey for putting some teeth into my comment and demonstrating that R. Gates is engaging in spin, hoping to catch a few eyes of some casual new readers to this website that don’t know the actual scientific observations & measurements that have been recorded.
R. Gates, I’d like to see a response from you regarding smokey’s data points.
If not…well, then I suggest you’ve been exposed as just another AGW proponent pitching woo and hoping to pull the wool over the eyes of some of the readers, here.
It ain’t going to happen, my friend…
And, it’s getting harder to do that all the time wherever you pitch your woo.
Dear Solar Commenters,
Ahhhh, I missed out on the great solar dialog in this post!!!!
Was traveling up to Tokyo …….
Now, i need to catch up.
Looks like you guys/gals had a lot of fun in the sun.
John