From UCAR: Extended solar minimum linked to changes in Sun’s conveyor belt
BOULDER—A new analysis of the unusually long solar cycle that ended in 2008 suggests that one reason for the long cycle could be a stretching of the Sun’s conveyor belt, a current of plasma that circulates between the Sun’s equator and its poles. The results should help scientists better understand the factors controlling the timing of solar cycles and could lead to better predictions.
The study was conducted by Mausumi Dikpati, Peter Gilman, and Giuliana de Toma, all scientists in the High Altitude Observatory at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), and by Roger Ulrich at the University of California, Los Angeles. It appeared on July 30 in Geophysical Research Letters. The study was funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor, and by NASA’s Living with a Star Program.
The Sun goes through cycles lasting approximately 11 years that include phases with increased magnetic activity, more sunspots, and more solar flares, than phases with less activity. The level of activity on the Sun can affect navigation and communications systems on Earth. Puzzlingly, solar cycle 23, the one that ended in 2008, lasted longer than previous cycles, with a prolonged phase of low activity that scientists had difficulty explaining.
The new NCAR analysis suggests that one reason for the long cycle could be changes in the Sun’s conveyor belt. Just as Earth’s global ocean circulation transports water and heat around the planet, the Sun has a conveyor belt in which plasma flows along the surface toward the poles, sinks, and returns toward the equator, transporting magnetic flux along the way.
“The key for explaining the long duration of cycle 23 with our dynamo model is the observation of an unusually long conveyor belt during this cycle,” Dikpati says. “Conveyor belt theory indicates that shorter belts, such as observed in cycle 22, should be more common in the Sun.”
Recent measurements gathered and analyzed by Ulrich and colleagues show that in solar cycle 23, the poleward flow extended all the way to the poles, while in previous solar cycles the flow turned back toward the equator at about 60 degrees latitude. Furthermore, as a result of mass conservation, the return flow was slower in cycle 23 than in previous cycles.
In their paper, Dikpati, Gilman, and de Toma used simulations to model how the solar plasma conveyor belt affected the solar cycle. The authors found that the longer conveyor belt and slower return flow could have caused the longer duration of cycle 23.
The NCAR team’s computer model, known as the Predictive Flux-transport Dynamo Model, simulates the evolution of magnetic fields in the outer third of the Sun’s interior (the solar convection zone). It provides a physical basis for projecting the nature of upcoming solar cycles from the properties of previous cycles, as opposed to statistical models that emphasize correlations between cycles. In 2004, the model successfully predicted that cycle 23 would last longer than usual.
According to Dikpati, the duration of a solar cycle is probably determined by the strength of the Sun’s meridional flow. The combination of this flow and the lifting and twisting of magnetic fields near the bottom of the convection zone generates the observed symmetry of the Sun’s global field with respect to the solar equator.
“This study highlights the importance of monitoring and improving measurement of the Sun’s meridional circulation,” Ulrich says. “In order to improve predictions of the solar cycle, we need a strong effort to understand large-scale patterns of solar plasma motion.”
About the article
Title: Impact of changes in the Sun’s conveyor-belt on recent solar cycles
Authors: Mausumi Dikpati, Peter Gilman, Giuliana de Toma, and Roger Ulrich
Publication: Geophysical Research Letters
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Another appeal for more research money.
Sure beats me how you gather data to model the interior of the sun when you don’t even know its composition. Besides, if you look at it too long it hurts your eyes.
I will answer with a Winnie the Pooh poem:
The more it snows
the more it goes
the more it goes on
snowing
And a quote from Archimedes I think it was:
in greek
Δος μοι πα στω , και ταν γαν κινησω
give me a place to stand, and I can move the earth
In other words, give me a model, and I can explain it all.
I ran the BBC article on this a few days ago. There seems to be some disagreement between the various people guessing what is going on inside the Sun.
“However, Dr David Hathaway, a solar physicist from Nasa’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama, who was not involved in the latest study, argued that it was the speed and not the extent of the conveyor that was of real importance. The conveyor has been running at record high-speeds for over five years. Dr Hathaway said: “I believe this could explain the unusually deep solar minimum.”
Remember these are models Dikpati et al are playing with. Actual abservations are sparse.
Unusual use of the word “explain” by these solar scientists.
It seems that if they can describe something that they don’t understand in terms of something else that they don’t understand, then the 1st non-understood thing is “explained” and the mystery now is centered around the other thing that they don’t understand.
Come to think of it, I guess that’s just science.
I vote to send Mann to location and report back on the situation. While I doubt he will return, he will say that the conveyor belt is shaped like a hockey stick.
Clearly I am not an expert on the subject of the sun.
Please help me remedy this a little and clear up some of my ignorance.
How can they know what is happening under the surface of the sun with any level of certainty? I know they can look at it with different filters to see the sun in x-ray, ultra-violet, etc…. but how do they see inside what is happening down below? Or are they looking at the patterns on the surface and agreeing (through confirmation bias) to all assume the same thing that is happening below the surface?
Have we sent any probes into the sun to measure what it actually happening?
So how do they know that there is a current moving down there?
These observations have no predictive value. That won’t come until they understand why the conveyor belt’s behaviour changes. Gravitational pull on the sun by the major planets might be the factor that controls the conveyor belt. Finding patterned connections between the two might go part of the way to explaining and predicting sunspot cycle minima and maxima and related weather on Earth.
Geoff Sherrington says:
August 17, 2010 at 1:15 am
“Sure beats me how you gather data to model the interior of the sun when you don’t even know its composition. Besides, if you look at it too long it hurts your eyes.”
You do it at night ;o)
Ms Dikpati had a model back in 2006 which predicted the past very nicely. There seems to be some doubt about whether its predictions for Cycle 24 (huge), are going to happen.
Is this the same Dakpati that refuses to acknowledge that she blew her forecast of SC24 as being the highest SS count on record. Any scientist thusly married to their pet theories should have funding removed until the rose colored glasses come off. She’s still using models rather than observation, and that to me is poor science.
I note that the WSO tilt data (see “When the sun goes TILT”) seems to indicate that something rather unusual happened during solar cycle 23 around 2003 that caused a hidden secondary peak at that time. Perhaps this event signaled the collapse of the normal minor polar circulation cell that is indicated in the diagram above.
Interesting bit of modeling, but it ultimately explains nothing. The hypothesis is that the stretched-out meridional flow prolonged Cycle 23. The un-asked question is: what stretched out the meridional flow?
Ed
Hadley cells?
Geoff says:
August 17, 2010 at 2:31 am
Ms Dikpati had a model back in 2006 which predicted the past very nicely. There seems to be some doubt about whether its predictions for Cycle 24 (huge), are going to happen.
My thoughts exactly! Well spotted. It was considered bang-on going back almost 100 years of past Solar Cycles, they were so confident in their models ability to model SC24. They got it completely wrong I believe. The arrogance of these people knows no limits it would seem.
Ken Hall says:
August 17, 2010 at 2:03 am
Have we sent any probes into the sun to measure what it actually happening?
I think the probe builders are having a bit of trouble processing the unobtanium they need to use for the casing.
Presumably movements in the centre of mass of the solar system due to orbital harmonics of the planets would impact the angular velocity of the Sun about it’s axis. Conventional physics suggests that this would disturb the fluid components making up the orb. But does anyone really know what alchemy is going on under those bright wriggly bits?
The further any particular science is from regular, direct and comprehensive observations, the whackier its theories seem to get.
I often wonder whether we have got stellar physics colossally wrong, never mind cosmology. The latter in particular makes the current state of climate science look positively empirical.
For example – your model shows that 90% of the matter you were expecting to find isn’t there. What do you do? Instead of revising your model you postulate a ubiquitous, undetectable substance called ‘Dark Matter’. Right.
That is what I was thinking too. Perhaps they should use difficulttogetholdofium instead, or inventedofthetopofmyheadium.
I hear there is a run on survivetheplasmacoronasphereium so that might be a tad too expensive too.
My question about a probe, was somewhat tongue-in-cheek-ium.
Don’t know jack about the subject really, but here’s a little tit-bit on the scale of things – quite staggering.
http://www.rense.com/general72/size.htm
tallbloke says:
August 17, 2010 at 3:34 am
I think the probe builders are having a bit of trouble processing the unobtanium they need to use for the casing.
They can emulate solar conditions inside accelerators and reactors by using magnetic bottles to trap the well-hot stuff safely.
So they just need to build one of these inside out.
Ed Fix says:
August 17, 2010 at 2:58 am
Interesting bit of modeling, but it ultimately explains nothing. The hypothesis is that the stretched-out meridional flow prolonged Cycle 23. The un-asked question is: what stretched out the meridional flow?
Ed, Dead right. It has struck me for years and years that climate scientist never, never get to the source. It’s always, ‘something does this’ but never ‘and it does it because of this and then this’. Never at source.
Fascinating! Let’s call the longer conveyor belt the “glacial” mode and the shorter conveyor belt the “interglacial” mode…
@KPO, here’s an even better example. Has a few numbers at the end, rather spectacular…
There is http://gong.nso.edu/data/farside/
to look at the farside.
sunquakes for the inside
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=11109
etc.