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
AH, dark matter. Yes 🙂
I find it interesting, if not impossible, to think of matter without thermal radiation. Perhaps the fact that galaxies don’t seem to hold together under our most advanced theories of gravitation suggests to me perhaps revisiting our theory of gravitation over immense distances; rather than create some new thing, deus ex machina like.
Ahem..
My theory (which is mine) of Astrophysical Galactic Warping, or AGW as I like to call it
Dark matter surrounds the galaxy, which, as we know should fly apart, there not being enough mass to generate enough gravity to hold it together. This dark matter, or Cop-Out**2 is it is known by experts in the field (abreviated to CO2) works in this manner.
CO2 absorbs the gravity emitted by the galaxy and then re-emits it in both directions, thereby increasing by many-fold the amount of gravity in the galaxy, holding it together. Some pessimists suggests that this may eventually lead to a dangerous build-up of CO2, as the greater gravity will attract more CO2, which will in turn cause more build up of gravity in the galaxy, until a dangerous tipping point is reached and the galaxy will crush in onto itself, forming a black hole, into which massive amounts of research funding can be perpetually poured.
/enough with the fun already, now back to work.
Zeke the Sneak says:
August 17, 2010 at 10:54 am
To be very specific, the ‘claims’ regarding the thermonuclear sun with a dynamo generating the complex magnetic fields, and conveyor belts
There are two different things there: the thermonuclear sun and the dynamo. There are not connected.
graduated to scientific ‘fact’ in the ’20′s. No other hypothesis has been deeply considered, ever.
The fusion theory was subjected to intense scrutiny in the 1990s, even to the point it was suggested it didn’t operate at all [at the present, at least], because of the ‘neutrino problem’. The fusion theory predicted a specific number of neutrinos, which was higher than what was observed at the time. With newer neutrino monitors in the 2000s, it was found that neutrinos oscillate between three flavors, and that the predicted flux was correct after all. This is the kind of evidence that helps elevate a theory to a fact.
Now a claim that becomes a fact without any possible chance of falsification is still a claim.
The neutrino observations were the falsification test, and the fusion theory passed with flying colors.
The dynamo is a different matter. It is certain that there is a dynamo [that’s how the universe create magnetic fields from earlier magnetic fields], but we don’t know the details of how it operates. Those are being researched and we’ll eventually find out.
…Expansion of space…
An idea invented by Guth to get out of a hole the big bang was in. If we could, this instant, go the edge of expanding space what is on the other side of the edge? What is it expanding into? Space could have existed before the big bang, not get created when it occured. Also time could have existed before the big bang because we don’t know how long the singularity existed before “explosion”.
Before anyone gets hyper I accept the big bang. Other than “Let there be light.” it is the only reasonable explanation at this time. I just think it needs some work.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 17, 2010 at 11:29 am
With newer neutrino monitors in the 2000s, it was found that neutrinos oscillate between three flavors, and that the predicted flux was correct after all. This is the kind of evidence that helps elevate a theory to a fact.
I understand, I hope accurately, that the new theory inre neutrinos says that this particle leaves the sun (as a byproduct of a nuclear reaction)
as one ‘flavor’ of neutrino, and arrive at earth as another ‘flavor’ of neutrino.
Zeke the Sneak says:
August 17, 2010 at 11:43 am
I understand, I hope accurately, that the new theory in re neutrinos says that this particle leaves the sun (as a byproduct of a nuclear reaction)
It is not a ‘new’ theory. The theory has predicted this from [almost] the beginning.
i>as one ‘flavor’ of neutrino, and arrive at earth as another ‘flavor’ of neutrino.
There are three flavors [or families] of elementary particles and of neutrinos. The fusion process only produce neutrinos of one family. However, it seems that neutrinos have mass [tiny] and that they therefore can oscillate between the three families and that we therefore only see one third of each. The original neutrino experiment [begun in 1968] was only sensitive to one of those families and therefore saw only a third. Newer monitors can see the other flavors and it all adds up to what it should. We check this by looking for neutrinos produced by nuclear power plants, and it all check out. There is no neutrino problem any more and the fusion theory can now resonably well be considered a fact.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 17, 2010 at 11:29 am
It is certain that there is a dynamo [that’s how the universe create magnetic fields from earlier magnetic fields], but we don’t know the details of how it operates. Those are being researched and we’ll eventually find out.
At this point in time this is the statement of an article of faith rather than a scientific pronouncement. I would agree with Leif that the overturning of material inside the sun due to temperature differentials will create magnetic fields. Whether or not these are the main cause and/or principle modulators of the sunspot cycles is now an ***OPEN QUESTION***
Hurrah! I love mysteries and open fields of research 🙂
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 17, 2010 at 6:59 am
there does not seem to be a conveyor belt at all, but rather several cells, both in latitude and more importantly at depth. What we observe at the surface does not seem to reflect very well what goes on deep within the Sun. SDO will in the coming years tell us more about the circulation(s).
Good luck with the two day old hypothesis on “cells at various depths” Leif. Sincerely, it’s great to see you sweeping away the old and getting on with the new.
Ken S says:
August 17, 2010 at 7:04 am (Edit)
tallbloke says:
August 17, 2010 at 1:30 am
“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.””
If I remember correctly, before that it was thought that the conveyor was running a little slower!
IIRC Hathaway said th southern solar hemisphere conveyor had slowed down. Anyway, as Leif says, conveyors are so yesterday, let’s get with the new.
tallbloke says:
August 17, 2010 at 12:04 pm
At this point in time this is the statement of an article of faith rather than a scientific pronouncement.
No, that is the considered opinion of every scientist in the field. Not ‘article of faith’ anymore than Maxwell’s equations are.
Good luck with the two day old hypothesis on “cells at various depths”
This is the result of the GONG-experiment as reported by Frank Hill at SHINE. It is is, of course, only preliminary, and we need more data to pin down where the cells are and how they change with time. Keep your ‘in with the new’ where it belongs.
Robert of Ottawa says:
August 17, 2010 at 11:18 am
That’s a Galactic Green House!, fantastic: You just took Arrhenius mistake to galactic levels. Now you’ll have to find a galactic pot and its lid to keep all that dark heat trapped in it!
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 17, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Newer monitors can see the other flavors and it all adds up to what it should.
What you are saying is that the total amount of neutrinos, as required from a thermonuclear sun, are present.
However, the type of neutrinos required for the thermonuclear model are not arriving to earth. So it must be said that the neutrinos that left the sun oscillated into a different flavor of neutrino, and arrived in the proper amounts, but not in the proper types.
Do neutrinos oscillate into a different ‘flavor’ on their path to the earth?
We are in an epistemological problem about how to disentangle a tangle. In order to achieve such a bliss we should turn our minds blank of any self indulging beliefs and begin from the start again.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 17, 2010 at 12:22 pm
that is the considered opinion of every scientist in the field. Not ‘article of faith’ anymore than Maxwell’s equations are.
Maxwell had some great insights, somewhat tempered by Oliver Heavyside’s reformulations.
This is the result of the GONG-experiment as reported by Frank Hill at SHINE. It is is, of course, only preliminary, and we need more data to pin down where the cells are and how they change with time.
It’s as exciting for us as you. We will soon be able to download data and see how these “cells” relate to planetary positions and their relative motion.
Keep your ‘in with the new’ where it belongs.
Hey, our hypothesis is a good deal older and better developed than your new one, and has been shown to make useful predictions, unlike your old and now obsolete theory, so take it easy with the putdowns.
You said two days ago of this post:
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 12, 2010 at 7:34 pm
for today’s solar system there is not enough energy in the planetary influences to have any effect. To overcome that hurdle the correlation has to be MUCH better.
I have modified Roy Martin’s calculations to test for an electromagnetic influence rather than tidal and the correlation has got MUCH better. No ‘upstream power’ from the planets to the sun is required for the local organisation of energy at the solar surface to be affected by planetary positions, as has already been empirically proven. I’ll be posting about it soon so folk should keep an eye on my blog for the new results over the next few days.
So what does their predict we can expect (duration and activity) from this cycle?
Being able to make reasonably correct predictions is the sign of a robust model.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 17, 2010 at 7:57 am
MikeW says:
August 17, 2010 at 7:20 am
If the conveyor system provides a thick, constant poleward flow on the surface of the sun, why is it that a given solar cycle’s spots tend to first appear far from the equator and then, over the length of the cycle’s active period [apparently] migrate toward the equatorial region?
According to their model [and most solar physicists] the magnetic field is amplified during the travel on the belt at depth, Once it is strong some of it breaks out to the surface. As the belt continues its equatorward motion, the break-out will likewise.
Are the spots [some kind of equivalent of] bubbles coming up from the very deep counter-flow?
That is the idea.
_____
Does the magnetic disturbance display any cyclonic or anticyclonic behavior? My minds eye pictures a giant magnetic stirring device whirling in the depths of the solar beaker creating a vortex.
DirkH says:
August 17, 2010 at 10:18 am
Zwicky used the Virial theorem to estimate the amount of matter necessary to explain the motion of a spiral galaxy, where inner and outer parts rotate around the center with the same periodicity
A presumption that is not confirmed by observation. There is strong visual evidence that the inner stars are being ripped apart and shooting dust outward from the poles of the central mass.
Observations of less complex massive bodies indicate that the rotational velocity is not at its highest at the disks widest plane but rather across the plane. The arms are the product of ejected matter from the poles of the black hole that later condense into stars with denser elements.
Globular clusters are almost entirely made up of hydrogen. It is these that are being pulled by gravity to the central mass. They don’t rotate because gravity doesn’t rotate. Only when they approach the central mass do they start to collide with other light elements and they fall close to the event horizon. Some electrons are stripped and shoot out at the poles, others are consumed adding to the mass of the black hole. After that it all becomes a bit vague. 🙂
Also, your supermassive objects would have to be detectable by their gravity lens effect.
You can only use the gravity lens to detect local massive objects. The filaments are made up of millions of galaxies.
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/G/Galactic+Filaments
Richard G says:
August 17, 2010 at 1:34 pm
As in the Birkeland’ s Terrella EXPERIMENT. But that’ s to simple for minds entangled in a self indulging string universe. How could I get free out of me?
My2Cents says:
August 17, 2010 at 1:28 pm (Edit)
So what does their predict we can expect (duration and activity) from this cycle?
Being able to make reasonably correct predictions is the sign of a robust model.
Good question. Dikpati seems to have learned from previous mistakes (predicting solar cycle 24 to be the biggest ever) and is saying nothing definite. Conveyor belt theory seems to be old hat anyway according to Leif’s account of the latest GONG results.
Katabasis says:
August 17, 2010 at 10:09 am
Paul Birch says: “But, based on the observed luminosity, the total mass of visible stars (the “light matter”) is too low to account for the velocity curves. So there must be more mass we don’t see (the “dark matter” or “missing mass”).”
“There must?”
Unless you want to deny something as basic and thoroughly well established as Newtonian gravity.
Paul says: “This comprises the interstellar medium of neutral gas, dust, dark nebulae, planetary bodies, brown dwarfs (stars and sub-stars too faint to see), ordinary stars hidden by dust, neutron stars, black holes, and other junk.”
“I’d find the theory more palatable if this was all it was talking about with regard to the “missing matter”, though you’ve included at least one more theoretical construct in that list (black holes).”
Black holes are pretty firmly established by now – both observationally and theoretically. One can quibble about some of the physics, but there’s little ndoubt that objects heavier and more compact than neutron stars do exist.
Paul says: “There’s nothing particularly mysterious about it – we know it’s there”
“We do? How?”
We can detect these forms of matter in various ways, particularly in own own galactic neighbourhood. For example, we can see where dust clouds block out light from beyond, so we know (to a high degree of confidence) that there must be stars we can’t see behind them. Stars far too faint to be observed in distant galaxies can yet be seen if they are nearby (within a few tenths of a light years).
“What is being proposed is very strange – even given the list you provide above it is a colossal ask to entertain the idea that this is what makes up 80% of the matter supposed to exist in the universe; the calculation for which is IIRC based on the Big Bang Theory, which is even more of a mind-bending LSD tripping whacky theory, and a First Cause argument to boot. ”
This is mixing up the astrophysical missing mass question with the cosmological critical mass assumption (this is a common confusion, especially in the media, but even among cosmologists). Observational evidence suggests that the universe is open, with a deceleration parameter ~1/10. Certain theoretical cosmologists don’t like that, and would prefer to believe that the unverse is either closed or at the critical boundary between the two, with q0=1/2. The universe seems to disagree, having apparently a density only a fifth or a tenth of what these theorists would like. By hijacking the genuine astrophysical dark matter concept, they are able to obscure the conflict with the observational evidence. There is, however, no good reason to suppose that this weirdified Dark Matter has any reality. The evidence for the low deceleration parameter has nothing to do with the gravitational effect of missing mass; it is largely based on the number of quasars and extragalactic radio sources at high red-shift, which depends upon the geometry of space-time. An open universe has a much greater volume at high red-shifts than a closed universe – and so we expect to see an exponential surplus of sources the further out we look. The analysis is complicated by the fact that further in distance is also further back in time, when the quasars were younger and active ones were probably more numerous. This complication means that the evidence is not quite watertight, giving the cosmologists a bit of wriggle room; we can’t absolutely rule out a universe of critical density.
What is being described appears to be artefacts of the underlying theory, not something based primarily on observation.
“Unless I’ve misunderstood you, you appear to be saying that the ‘popular’ concept of Dark Matter is completely wrong”
It’s wrong in the sense that talk of “carbon emissions” is also wrong. Carbon emissions are soot. Carbon dioxide emissions are quite different, and have very different effects. In science, accuracy in speech and concept is important. Muddle up disparate notions (as in the popular Dark Matter fad) and you end up talking nonsense.
I hope I’ve been able to clarify things a bit, and not just confused them further!
We need very large telescopes in space or on the Moon, so we can monitor Solar Cycles on other stars.
Of course everyone else will want it for monitoring everything else.
Physics is now extravagantly unscientific
Miles Mathis
tallbloke says:
August 17, 2010 at 8:48 am
“Looks like all bets are off for now then with dynamologer’s theories. David Hathaway was refreshingly frank about it in a recent interview.”
The penny has only just dropped for Hathaway. Here’s a quote from another rather puzzled scientist:-
Eugene N. Parker – Professor Emeritus, Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, and the College; Enrico Fermi Institute – Eugene N. Parker – Special Historical Review article in Solar Physics, “…the pedestrian Sun exhibits a variety of phenomena that defy contemporary theoretical understanding. We need look no farther than the sunspot, or the intensely filamentary structure of the photospheric magnetic field, or the spicules, or the origin of the small magnetic bi-poles that continually emerge in the super-granules, or the heat source that maintains the expanding gas in the coronal hole, or the effective magnetic diffusion that is so essential for understanding the solar dynamo, or the peculiar internal rotation inferred from helioseismology, or the variation of solar brightness with the level of solar activity, to name a few of the more obvious mysterious macro-physical phenomena exhibited by the Sun.”
@Zeke the Sneak. Do you ever do your act in clubs? If so, I’d love to know where so I could see it. You’re absolutely brilliant as a parodist.
Unless you’re serious. In which case, my condolences to those who have to put up with you on a regular basis.
MartinGAtkins says:
August 17, 2010 at 1:48 pm
“You can only use the gravity lens to detect local massive objects. The filaments are made up of millions of galaxies.
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/G/Galactic+Filaments
”
A mirror image is still a mirror image.
If one wants to get speculative, try and imagine what might happen when two huge black-holes almost collide, given that each has an event-horizon where time-dilation has brought the local flow of time to a complete stop. Do these time-static event-horizons become deformed by tidal forces as the two objects come near? And what about the center of mass point between the two objects where the gravitational forces from both objects cancel out and thus time must flow at the normal rate? What if this point just grazes a normal event-horizon radius.