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
Solar tour, Special rates for IPCC gore pachy holdren etc etc, lets have whip round to raise funds to send them there:-) get bransons new toy to take em.
I think that one thing’s abundantly clear–the posters here should be the ones asking the NASA folks the questions, because the average reporter (probably even the above average reporter) just doesn’t have the science to ask all the right questions. Hopefully they’ll have done their homework, however, and we’ll get some candid observations in the discussion.
Pamela Gray says:
March 2, 2011 at 6:19 am
Priceless, Pamela… Priceless.
Terry says:
March 2, 2011 at 5:22 am
I’m just trying to figure out how I can prepare my next summer’s garden knowing they’re in for a cold, difficult “summer”. Last summer was bad enough.
Computer models can explain anything after the fact. It would be nice to see one figure things out before hand. Watson for example knows a lot about things that have happened, but just try and think up something on your own Watson and lets see how smart you are.
I suggest that NASA stands for Never Analytical, Scientific, or Accurate
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 2, 2011 at 6:07 am
Wow! I’m surprised Leif! Comedy from you? I’ll bet your sitting there with a big smile on your face. And I do not mean that sarcastically. I can see the NASA spokesperson now after a looooong intro- “…. so our super computer clearly shows the it is the stochastic fluctuations in poloidal field source – – – or it was the meriodional circulation of rotten dilithium crystals preventing neutrino formation – – – in either case the computer says they are still there – we just can’t see them or – or detect them.”
“So there is nothing to worry about…..”
“CO2 will keep us warm…..”
“Thank you very much.”
“We will not be taking questions.”
“In God we trust.”
savethesharks says:
March 2, 2011 at 6:38 am (Edit)
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.
nothing wrong with a guy from India, or somebody from anywhere else for that matter – if he/she/they/it are honest and unbiased. But with NASA’s mission now politicized about “outreach to Muslims” as the primary task (or was that “climate change” as the primary task just at NASA-GISS?) Or was that Education as the primary task? Or was “climate change” merely the requirement for most of NASA’s funding under Obama’s recent “Stimulust Package” to NASA and his recent budgets?
Do I have any reason (not to be) suspicious of “NASA” as an honest source of unbiased government-sponsored information about any aspect of climate or solar information affecting climate, when 1.3 trillion in new taxes are at stake?
Tsk! They are not missing! They are simply on the “Dark Side”! sark off!
Pink Floyd will soon be writing another hit album about it!
MJB says:
March 2, 2011 at 5:54 am
It’s not just the CO2! I have been watching a fascinating science prog by the BBC over the last few years. The bloke in it a Dr of something or other (must be a scientist then), but he has this time machine thingy called a TARDIS. It stands for Time And Relative Dimension In Space. I suspect it’s all that time travelling in & out of space that’s causing it all, mark my words! Well it’s as good as anything NASA will come up with ! What’s the betting they’ll do what they did last time when asked “what effect does this have on climate”, after they got all that data in from the Sun orbiting satellite, they just stared blankly & said “we’re not climate scientists!” :-))
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.
Does this mean the Predictive Flux-transport Dynamo Model is not going to be used, or will the Predictive Flux-transport Dynamo Model receive some improved conveyor belt adjustments to fit the observations and explain what they really mean?
I am against the participation of Dr Leif explaining the disappearance of sunspots at NASA teleconference.
Imagine, Leif with a pencil in hand correcting all errors.
Thus there is no time for great comments in WUWT.
Fellow Bloggers:
Solar Science is settled! {Well except for those pesky fluctuations}.
Why do they need a new model? Doesn’t the old one work? It appears to fail validation with real data. I know: “Let’s hide the decline” by altering past data.
Solar Science is a broken as Climate Science. These are the same people that gave us the Solar Constant on a “Variable Star”.
If you are interested, check out my new Solar Model on
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/208
Thanks
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 2, 2011 at 6:07 am (Edit)
They might say something along these lines:
http://www.physics.iisc.ernet.in/~bidya_karak/karak_goa.pdf
Without a text (or voice description of the powerpoint slide show) their report is more difficult to understand – particularly with respect to any caveats or limits on their model – but the three slides showing the simulated sunspot cycles compared to actual cycles are impressive. In particular, I can’t tell whether they are recommending that a high circulation, low circulation, or a combination of the high and low circulation models reproduce past solar cycles the best.
Those slides begin here “Modeling last 23 cycles using variable meridional circulation
From High diffusivity Model (Chatterjee, Nandy & Choudhuri 2004)
Karak 2010”
Fellow Bloggers:
Check out my new Solar Theory at
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/208
Thanks
Tom T said at 7:37 am
Computer models can explain anything after the fact. … Watson for example knows a lot… Right Tom, except the “explain” part. Watson and every other mass of circuitry understand absolutely nothing. BIG difference between “knowing” something and “understanding” – and you (it) have to understand to explain. “Give” an instruction manual (program) to anyone/anything and you can exact a response – but that response is no more or lass than what the writer/programmer knows, not what the “programmed” person/computer understands. Little wonder that it (Watson) won – the not at all amazing thing was – it was capable of pushing the button faster. For all the hype, the programming was very error prone – – – or was it?
Was some of that “stupidity” programmed-in to make it appear more – “human”?
Dave Springer says: The solar system is passing through a cloud of Galaccutane.
I though you said The solar system is passing through a cloud of Guacamole. ☺ Makes as much sense to me. ☺
They could say something Pythonesque, along these lines:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAYDiPizDIs
(of course they would substitute “sunspots” for “brontosaurus”)
It will be interesting what we hear for MSFC, where many of the predictions originate. I believe it was there, post Challenger, were they decided that NASA stood for Never A Straight Answer.
I always am grateful for the advancing front of science, in that it prepares us for likely eventualities, where the caveman only had the volcanoes to sacrifice victims and so to protect the future.
The study of sunspots, and their historical relationship to long cold periods now has the world totally prepared for the likely event of a long cold period. The investment in all of those climate satellites and solar instrumentation has really paid off!
This knowledge, like Joseph’s prophecy of 7 years’ famine in the Bible, has enabled us to save our corn and wheat and not squander these, to drill for oil and gas and replenish our stores, to build new nuclear reactors, and to store food in the granaries for the future bleak period.
Thank you science! We are now prepared!
[sarc/off]
Why does the release say ‘the recent solar minimum …. ended in 2008’? Surely it started then. I thought it was cycle 23 that ended in 2008.
Damn this is confusing.
The sun is missing its spots?
Has someone found a use for all that surplus swine flu vaccine?
What they won’t say: “We changed stuff that we though we had gotten right earlier, until the new answer was close to what actually happened last year. Come back in 22 years to see how well this worked.”
I think the missing sunspots are just out partying with the missing solar neutrinos…
Oh, wait. They explained the neutrinos: they just turn into another kind of neutrino that evaporates before they can be detected. Whew. Glad we modeled that problem away.
I suppose they could admit that we have a long way to go before we really understand solar physics.
No expensive supercomputers required to work it out. A pocket calculator with a piece of graph paper can do the job, well nearly enough.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
Scott Covert says:
March 2, 2011 at 6:38 am
Note:
The “S” in NASA does not stand for “Science”.
Quote of the week candidate?
I second this.