This should be interesting. At least they aren’t putting Dikpati on the panel. The scene from the movie “The Wizard of Oz” where after the residents of Emerald City see strange writings in the sky and shout “the Wizard will explain it!” come to mind.
MEDIA ADVISORY: M11-043
NASA RESCHEDULES TELECONFERENCE TO EXPLAIN MISSING SUNSPOTS
WASHINGTON — NASA has rescheduled a media teleconference for 2 p.m.
EST on Wednesday, March 2, to discuss the first computer model that
explains the recent period of decreased solar activity during the
sun’s 11-year cycle. The recent solar minimum, a period characterized
by a lower frequency of sunspots and solar storms, ended in 2008 and
was the deepest observed in almost 100 years.The teleconference panelists are:
— Richard Fisher, director, Heliophysics Division, Science Mission
Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington
— Dibyendu Nandi, assistant professor, Indian Institute of Science
Education and Research, Kolkata, India
— Andres Munoz-Jaramillo, visiting research fellow,
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Mass.
— Delores Knipp, visiting scientist, University of Colorado at
Boulder
Supporting information for the briefing will be posted at:
Audio of the teleconference will be streamed live on the Web at:
===============================================
h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard
Am I mizzing something?
Considering that their original SC24 predictions were for a peak at 2011-2012 at just over 170 count ….. What was the problem with the “original” NASA program and what has changed in the solar physics to (a) either change the physics (not likely!) or (b) change their understanding of the solar physics to indicate a better prediction program now?
TO date, what is indicated is a simple continuous “re-re-replotting” of a curve that just fits the latest data. Which is not a prediction at all.
The solar system is passing through a cloud of Galaccutane.
The only words left to tell the world are:
“The Earth is getting colder quickly because the sun is in Grand Minimum. We can prepare, unlike Dalton/Maunder times when there was no NASA computer models to warn us.”
It would have been more accurate to call this NASA effort a “discussion”. “Explanation” implies you understand what is happening pretty well.
The basic mechanisms are not well understood and we have nearly zero predictive capacity about what is driving the sun beyond the basic ~11 year cycles fusion and magnetism.
Let me guess – they won’t say a thing about the Livingston/Penn Cheshire sunspot effect, right? (Likely the model doesn’t model that, but models the sunspot cycle in a fashion more like Leif’s ideas.) (But they still oughta mention that the spots they model may fade from view!)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/18/suns-magnetics-remain-in-a-funk-sunspots-may-be-on-their-way-out/
Sunspots have not gone missing, they are not there because the sun is taking its well deserved break.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
great, another multi-million (billion) dollar computer that can only follow and predict trends……………….
Surely human CO2 emissions must have some negative feed-back effect on the sun’s behavior! LOL
carbon-based life form says:
March 2, 2011 at 5:08 am
Am I mizzing something?
_________________________________________________
Yes, Anthony forgot to tell us about the latest issue in climate science.
Alphabet disruption.
There appear to be several well documented (model predicted even) cases of letters in words undergoing spontaneous mutation.
In this corner ten computer models.
In this corner ten monkeys.
Which would produce more accurate predictions of solar activity?
We have a troll about that is down dinging everyone and everything. Even a pure science announcement like this.
Clearly the low activity is due to CO2. In the before time when earths outgoing radiation wasn’t blocked by CO2 more of it made it back to the sun which excited and perturbed the surface. Now, with humans belching out so much CO2 the sun is a nice calm place. NASA plans a mission there for 2024. /sarc
Ironic this press conference comes when the sun has been at it’s most active in this cycle (over the last month or so).
I listed to one of these conferences back in 2009. My guess is the scientists will acknowledge the lack of sunspots, but they will say this does not have much impact on the climate and the Sun will, any day now, roar back to life. They will say that 2010 was one of the warmest years ever recorded and thus, the lack of sunspots has virtually no impact. The large solar eruption last week is another sign the Sun will soon be back to normal.
What is key, here, is that the press ask tough questions, and not let the scientists ‘blow them off’. I was actually proud of the press’s questions in 2009, hope they are as well prepared today.
They might say something along these lines:
http://www.physics.iisc.ernet.in/~bidya_karak/karak_goa.pdf
Presumably NASA will be giving due credit to previous published research e.g.
http://journalofcosmology.com/ClimateChange111.html
I have their answer. They are human. They built the models based on what they knew and the models are behaving exactly like the scientists programmed them to, however the Sun isn’t a controlled lab so the models are showing the overall lack of knowledge we humans have in how the Sun works. No surprise, no big deal. One learns and moves on, just don’t try and blame mankind for the Sun’s natural behavior as they have with the Earth’s climate. That’s the easy way out.
I’ve discovered that it is okay to say things about how things might work (IE It’s the Sun wut done it) using the seat of your pants as your first try. But never forcing your butt to then read a book on the subject just makes you look like a butt-head.
I always got the impression from previous NASA discussions on the topic of solar activity that, no matter what state of quiet the sun was in, “the activity could ramp up at any time, any time now!” (my paraphrasing), such as in the sun’s activity was low but within norms. As time went on, the normal range as seen by NASA seemed to be lower and lower as we’ve seen with the belated lower sunspot predictions. Again, all via my perceptions, filtered by reading columns here at WUWT first.
If the NASA folks are now on board with a “The Sun has surprised us with the lower activity we just didn’t see coming” I’d be surprised. I think it’ll _still_ end up being something along the lines of “Yes, the solar activity is low, but it’s still within normal range because [some new model that explains how low activity can be explained as some normal activity with a fudge factor]
In other words, I think the NASA view will still cling to the “normal” range for the explanation of the current solar changes. The Livingston/Penn observations might still pose some problems in the way of explaining things to the public.
I believe NASA doesn’t want to use the phrase “we haven’t seen the sun do this before”
Too open ended.
mjb says –
Now, with humans belching out so much CO2 the sun is a nice calm place. NASA plans a mission there for 2024.
——————————-
They better make sure they go at night
/joke
EO
While they are in an explaining mood, can they explain what happened to the AMSU daily global temperatures. Just when the curve drops down into scary cold temps (new records?) the satellite gives up. I’m fighting myself to resist concluding that someone pulled the plug on it. It would be nice to get an update on repairs. I’m champing at the bit for the Feb monthly figure. Anyone?
Why isn’t Leif on this panel?
Oh….now I see….its government. Its the “new” and “less improved” NASA.
So they choose a guy from India that nobody has ever heard of but they won’t use one of the most qualified solar physicists in the world which is right on our own doorstep.
Leif is simply too qualified and too politically incorrect for the “new” NASA.
Got it.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Note:
The “S” in NASA does not stand for “Science”.
Quote of the week candidate?
Yesterday’s sunspot info from http://www.spaceweather.com
Sunspot number: 72
Updated 01 Mar 2011
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 0 days
2011 total: 1 day (2%)
2010 total: 51 days (14%)
2009 total: 260 days (71%)
Since 2004: 820 days
Typical Solar Min: 486 days
Updated 01 Mar 2011