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
Is there something different about this new first model that explains it, compared to the old first model that explained it?
Vuk:
No money in that! Can’t make a lucrative living off $5 calculators and graph paper!
It is really sad, seriously. When a person of stature, like a public scientist, paid by the public in trust, says something to make the people prepare for what he predicts, but the opposite comes about, he has effectively betrayed that trust. He is a bogus watchman, worse than a clown. Especially if he knows he is lying and doing it for personal gain, and that people will die if they blindly follow his prognostications.
Proverbs 14:25 says, “A truthful witness saves lives, but a false witness is deceitful.”
In the Old Testament, we all know what was the fate of the false prophet.
Thanks Lief.
The unusual minimum of sunspot cycle 23 caused by meridional plasma flow variations
Dibyendu Nandy, Andrés Muñoz-Jaramillo & Petrus C. H. Martens
Nature 471, 80–82 (03 March 2011) doi:10.1038/nature09786
Received 23 April 2010 Accepted 05 January 2011 Published online 02 March 2011
Direct observations over the past four centuries1 show that the number of sunspots observed on the Sun’s surface varies periodically, going through successive maxima and minima. Following sunspot cycle 23, the Sun went into a prolonged minimum characterized by a very weak polar magnetic field2, 3 and an unusually large number of days without sunspots4. Sunspots are strongly magnetized regions5 generated by a dynamo mechanism6 that recreates the solar polar field mediated through plasma flows7. Here we report results from kinematic dynamo simulations which demonstrate that a fast meridional flow in the first half of a cycle, followed by a slower flow in the second half, reproduces both characteristics of the minimum of sunspot cycle 23. Our model predicts that, in general, very deep minima are associated with weak polar fields. Sunspots govern the solar radiative energy8, 9 and radio flux, and, in conjunction with the polar field, modulate the solar wind, the heliospheric open flux and, consequently, the cosmic ray flux at Earth3, 10, 11.
Why dont they get Eric Steig and co to simply infill the missing spots. They can then homogenize them to fit the required density and all will be back to normal.
Leif Svalgaard says March 2, 2011 at 6:07 am – They might say something along these lines:
Except don’t we already know from the 10Be record that the sun’s field in general was not at a “very low” level during the Maunder? Depends what’s meant by very low I guess:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png
No mention of L & P. But either way, if the dynamo output decreased that much for that long, what caused it to eventually ramp up again? Far be it for me to start contemplating external demons on bicycles wielding cattle prods but then I’m left to consider internal fairies with pots of magic stochastic dust (one of whom is a bolshie union rep). I’ve not seen either genus at the bottom of my garden yet 🙂
Leif:
You described the event well. What is the consequence for climate? What are the pragmatic implications? What can we expect for the next SS cycle? What do you think the SS maximum will be? A WAG will do. It is also known as an hypothesis.
E.g., can we expect a weak polar field to increase cosmic rays, therefore increasing cloud cover and thereby reducing solar input for a net lowering of surface temps?
Do the observations have utility, I am asking.
The audio link is up now.
Article on this paper published 40 minutes ago according to Google:
“MSU team solves mystery of missing sunspots, helps predict space weather”.
http://www.montana.edu/cpa/news/nwview.php?article=9526
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 2, 2011 at 10:25 am
The unusual minimum of sunspot cycle 23 caused by meridional plasma flow variations (and quoting the study previously cited above.)
“Here we report results from kinematic dynamo simulations which demonstrate that a fast meridional flow in the first half of a cycle, followed by a slower flow in the second half, reproduces both characteristics of the minimum of sunspot cycle 23. Our model predicts that, in general, very deep minima are associated with weak polar fields. “
OK. Thank you for the input.
So, to translate what I think they said, so you can judge if my summary and my understanding is correct:
Their charts (in the ppt linked above) indicate that they used the these two polar solar circulation currents to model the sunspot behavior in the past 23 cycles. They got a very good correlation by tracking the same two polar currents (0.98+) and the start and finish of sunspot activities over the past Grand Minimums. (That is, sunspot trends at the start and finish of the GM’s, and at sunspot trends at the start and finish of normal 22 year solar cycles.) Now, they are finding the same characteristics that preceded past Grand Minimums in today’s end of Solar Cycle 23.
NASA’s link to the streaming audio hasn’t appeared yet, despite promise. Five minutes late. Scottie’s freaking.
===============
Maybe the lull in solar activity has something to do with these weather events:
http://thetruthpeddler.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/global-cooling-headlines-from-january-2011/
bubbagyro says:
March 2, 2011 at 10:35 am
What is the consequence for climate?
None that I can see.
What are the pragmatic implications?
Space-based capabilities will be affected. Solar storms also have consequences on the ground [power transmission, transformers, etc].
What can we expect for the next SS cycle?
Statistically, small cycles come in groups so on that basis the next [that is cycle 25 and we are currently in cycle 24] cycle would be expected to be small too. However, I have some reason to think that will not be the case. See below.
What do you think the SS maximum will be?
The F10.7 radio flux should be about 120. The ‘equivalent’ sunspot number would be about 72 [on the SIDC scale; on the NOAA scale 120]
E.g., can we expect a weak polar field to increase cosmic ray, therefore increasing cloud cover and thereby reducing solar input for a net lowering of surface temps?
The short answer is No.
The cosmic ray intensity is mainly determined by the CMEs and corotating sector structure during solar maximum [decreased GCRs]. At minimum [when the polar fields are strongest] the cosmic ray intensity recovers to about the same value in every minimum [excepting the very lowest energy cosmic rays which don’t have much effect anyway].
Now, during a solar cycle the magnetic flux from decaying sunspots are transported to the poles where the flux first reverses the old polar fields, and then thereafter builds up the new polar fields that determine the size of the next cycle. The polar fields at the north pole have already reversed sign and that gives the Sun a lot of time for building up the new flux, which may then become rather large, so my WAG for the next cycle [SC25] is a rather large cycle. At least as far as F10.7 is concerned. If L&P are correct, then visual sunspot number may be small, though. That combination of high [real] solar activity and hard to see sunspots might make for a lot of confusion and exploitation of pseudo-scientific nonsense. Is this WAG enough?
It seems that the theoreticians are slowly discovering the obvious namely that both polarities are moving towards the poles as shown in Figure 3 of
http://www.leif.org/research/Polar%20Fields%20and%20Cycle%2024.pdf
NASA’s ideas:
Big deal. Nothing new, solar meridional flow has been extensively analysed before, and guess what: it agrees very well with the ‘pocket calculator and a peace of graph paper’ method
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC17.htm
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 2, 2011 at 11:40 am
It seems that the theoreticians are slowly discovering the obvious namely that both polarities are moving towards the poles as shown in Figure 3 of
http://www.leif.org/research/Polar%20Fields%20and%20Cycle%2024.pdf
Munoz-Jaramillo, Figure 7.
My general impression: Just the usual NASA hype, no real meat. No breakthrough, little understanding gained. Only real tidbit: the polar fields are important [but that we knew].
He is saying that if you alternate a fast flow in the early half of the cycle, and slow meridional flow in the later half, you can produce a very deep minimum, with a large number of spotless days, in his model.
First question points out that Dr. Hathaway says that there was a slow meridional flow in the first half of the cycle.
He answers referring to his Nature paper. He compares the flow speed to that of cycle 23, and uses a deeper flow speed in his simulation. Roughly, although his accent is strong so see the paper.
They improved the model, and are debating different points, including what is input in it and what is output.
There are no predictions in this teleconference, except one woman said that “We are slowly creeping out of this minimum.” Perhaps the model is does not have a forward button to see what the sun will do next yet.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 2, 2011 at 11:32 am
None that I can see.
Space-based capabilities will be affected. Solar storms also have consequences on the ground [power transmission, transformers, etc].
Additional statements NASA made in this audio stream is that during this a solar minimum, there was a record increase in Cosmic Rays from space. She also said that when the sun is at maximum the atmosphere puffs up, and the day side is hotter; she then said that at minimum the atmosphere contracts and is much cooler. The collapsed atmosphere results in less atmospheric drag for satellites and more collisions with space junk.
Dr. Lurtz says:
March 2, 2011 at 8:12 am
Fellow Bloggers:
Check out my new Solar Theory at
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/208
Thanks
I agree completely.
I agree with vukcevic
NASA will make something up to explain the lack of sunspots. Perhaps “Climate Change”. I am sticking to my theory as a 1oth harmonic that will see the next two cycles below 90. The sun is having a rest for the next 30 years.
Another computer model NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Zeke the Sneak says:
March 2, 2011 at 11:45 am
He is saying that if you alternate a fast flow in the early half of the cycle, and slow meridional flow in the later half, you can produce a very deep minimum, with a large number of spotless days, in his model.
First question points out that Dr. Hathaway says that there was a slow meridional flow in the first half of the cycle.
Figure 9 of http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle%20(SORCE%202010).pdf shows the flow speed during SC23.
Thanks, Leif. It is good that you have the courage to go on record with those statements. Speaks well of your character.
I don’t know how well it speaks for your take on the implications of the new observations.
I think I side with the scientists who interpret the low cycles, especially this very low and long one, and the position of the sun with regard to the mass of the solar system, to mean that we are in for a solar minimum that will affect us for the rest of my lifetime at least, with implications for a lower probability for a severe cool-down.
I don’t know what the “tipping point” for glaciation is, but I don’t believe anyone knows that. I just know from geology that interglacial periods are short compared to glacial. Interglacials seem to average around the span of this Holocene.
I hope it is a thousand years ahead until this happens, and not 20.
We shall see.
Leif says:
“so my WAG for the next cycle [SC25] is a rather large cycle. At least as far as F10.7 is concerned. If L&P are correct, then visual sunspot number may be small, though.
So, you are saying there is no correlation between traditional sunspot numbers and F10.7 radiation?
Interesting—that means that F10.7 has no predictive value, since we did not have F10.7 data in the past, but we do have sunspot numbers (Wolf type values). Now I understand why you say that, as to climate effects, “there are none that I can see.”
Inductive + deductive logic.