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
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 2, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Yikes, your evidence is tautologies. Layman’s is rubbish, and your evidence for that is a proxy for a proxy, but only over some periods. You define F10.7 flux as a good indicator of solar activity. Then you define solar activity in terms of 10.7 flux. Then you proxy it back to EUV and magnetism.
You say it correlates well, but not before 1947 and after 1998? Huh? If it only correlates for some situations and not others, then it doesn’t correlate.
Thanks for the papers. I had seen them before and got a lot of good information from them (it was hard, because they are aligned sideways, and I don’t have Adobe pro, but I turned my laptop sideways).
But remember, this is a Climate Blog! I want to find out about what the climate was yesteryear, and what it will be the next 20 years or so.
Your methods don’t seem to be trying to do that at all. Layman attempts to put our current situation in historical context. I applaud those efforts. Leif, you do good work, but you are applying a method that has no external validation possible, at least not this decade. Solar influence on climate, the how and whens, is what I need proven. People are getting enamored of nuances and instrumental methods too much, IMO, and not looking for the big picture.
I believe the sun is the big Kahuna, and that it is a variable star. The earth has gotten cold and hot under the direct influence of Sol, and because of Sol’s variance.
Dr S, thank you for figure 9. It does look like the meridional flow gets fastest at minimum, in that period, 1995 – 2010.
Also thank you for the Birkeland paper on zodiacal light the other day. Zeke
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 2, 2011 at 6:03 pm
It is true that F10.7 is not a good indicator of whether that magnetic field results in a visible spot.
Exactly, as flare activity, plage, and other sources also play their part. Trying to show a deviation of F10.7 flux from visible spots without taking in the other factors is more junk science. Time to forget about using F10.7 as evidence for the failed L&P theory. When looking at the magnetic strength and darkness during Feb there is no shortage.
bubbagyro says:
March 2, 2011 at 6:55 pm
You say it correlates well, but not before 1947 and after 1998? Huh? If it only correlates for some situations and not others, then it doesn’t correlate.
Measurements started in 1947. We assume that it correlated well before that [unless you go back several hundred years to the Maunder Minimum]. It still correlates well after 1996, but with a different [smaller] slope meaning that currently we see fewer sunspots for a given F10.7 flux than we saw before 1996. This can be due to
1) a change in how F10.7 is measured. We have independent measurements of the micro wave flux from Japan, so we may exclude this possibility.
2) a change in how sunspots are counted, in the sense that we now count too few; although there is some evidence that we undercount sunspots, the amount by which we seem to be undercounting is much too small to explain the discrepancy we see.
3) a change in the Sun, in the sense that sunspots are less visible than before. There may be some support for this, known as the L&P effect, but regardless of what one thinks of L&P, the fact remains that fewer spots are seen for the same F10.7 flux.
Thanks for the papers. I had seen them before and got a lot of good information from them (it was hard, because they are aligned sideways, and I don’t have Adobe pro, but I turned my laptop sideways).
You can download the Adobe READER for free.
I believe the sun is the big Kahuna, and that it is a variable star. The earth has gotten cold and hot under the direct influence of Sol, and because of Sol’s variance.
People’s beliefs I cannot do anything about. I can only tell you what my own quest for these things over the past 40+ years have taught me.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 2, 2011 at 7:18 pm
Exactly, as flare activity, plage, and other sources also play their part. Trying to show a deviation of F10.7 flux from visible spots without taking in the other factors is more junk science.
These other things are just sunspot related and play the same part. All the time from 1947 to ~1996 they related to F10.7 just like the spots. After that we simply see [and count] too few spots. This is an observed fact that is not up for debate.
Leif Svalgaard says March 2, 2011 at 11:32 am
How does that pan out in the past? I’m guessing we can’t go back far beyond 1976 or deduce much from proxies. Is there anything prior to the WSO data?
AJB says:
March 2, 2011 at 8:12 pm
Is there anything prior to the WSO data?
We have direct measurements back to 1966:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png
and some informed guesses before that:
http://www.leif.org/research/Polar%20Fields%20and%20Cycle%2024.pdf
Milwaukee Bob – do not make fun of dilithium crystals or you’ll get in tribble.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 2, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Nice Finger Puzzle image there : http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png
No, really, you couldn’t draw a more artful image than that one.
Looks like Max will be in about 2 years.
Thus far, the Area measurements are as poor as can be:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/uSC24vs13_14.GIF
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 2, 2011 at 7:37 pm
All the time from 1947 to ~1996 they related to F10.7 just like the spots. After that we simply see [and count] too few spots. This is an observed fact that is not up for debate.
I beg to differ. My graph shows considerable variation between the two data sets. What do you put down the higher sunspot count to F10.7 during SC20? A negative L&P effect perhaps?
And if we go past 1996 the heavy flare activity during 2002 showing a large deviation
between F10.7 and sunspots before aligning again later. Please do not show me your concocted version of the F10.7 record.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 2, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
March 2, 2011 at 4:56 pm
EUV is a FAIRLY good indicator of F10.7 flux as this daily graph shows.
——————————————————–
On a daily basis, the indicator is fair. On a monthly basis, it is EXCELLENT.
Even on a monthly basis the match is NOT excellent. An example of this is the base levels reached during solar minima. Your own studies suggest the F10.7 flux has a relatively flat baseline at solar minimum. Recorded EUV values show a large variance between solar minima. A presentation by Tom Woods shows F10.7 flux varied by 3.8% when comparing the last 2 minima while EUV varied 15%, I have seen other reports suggesting a higher variance (28%) along with the SC21/22 minimum being higher again. This report also highlights the differences in origin between F10.7 and EUV. The EUV results are backed up by the lowest ever recording of the ionosphere.
There is much to be learned from EUV.
> 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.
And if the minimum is a few decades long (e.g. Maunder or Dalton) that implies…
NASA said WHAT?!?!
Leif Svalgaard says: March 2, 2011 at 3:51 pm
I don’t think they will waste any effort on that.
As Dr. Hathaway has abundantly demonstrated on number of occasions even top experts, with impressive qualifications in the field, can be occasionally wrong, not because they do not know the subject, but they are unwilling to consider all alternatives.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/gms.htm
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU06/01705/EGU06-J-01705.pdf
RockyRoad says:
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.
Well, I suggest learning more about “cool season plants”. Things from the cruciferous family. Cabbages, kale, brussels sprouts, mustards, turnips, radishes etc. Also more potatoes are a good idea.
Plant fewer things needing a lot of heat ( tomatoes that won’t set fruit under 50 F at night… plant “Siberia” or “Siberian” instead, they set fruit at lower temps) and use shorter season varieties when you do ( i.e. 50-55 day corn instead of the 90 day types) as the season is likely to start late and end early.
Also look to those vegetables, like peas and green onions, that are more cool tolerant along with things like Fava beans. If you want “green beans” plant “purple pod” types as they will germinate in colder wetter soils. Root crops, like parsnips and carrots, also do well in cooler times, as does lettuce and celery.
Basically, take your Sunset Garden Book and look up one or two “zones” colder than where you are now, then make your planting calendar based on that one. I’m making extra “starts” and expect to set them out at my usual time, and perhaps again a week or two later if there is a “late frost”.
For me, for example, I’m doing kale and spinach with radishes and peas this spring when normally I’d be doing more green beans and squash. What squash I am starting is an “8 Ball” or Rond du Nice that matures in 45 days. I’m ditching the lima beans (as they take a long time and want warm) and going with one cold tolerant tomato instead of a ‘few’ that are are marginal for my location. I’m also doing some beets and chard that are more on the cool tolerant side. I’m also expecting more broccoli and I’m looking at some “Chinese Choy” and Napa Cabbage type vegetables that are supposed to be more cold tolerant.
The “wild card” is going to be rain. You may get a lot more, or a lot less, IMHO. It will depend on where you are. I’d look to the weather history for your location about 1800 as a guide. Most of Europe I’d expect to get more cold / wet, while North Africa I’d expect to be drier ( it looks to me like there is a 1440 year drought cycle in North Africa with a 720 or so 1/2 cycle of mini-events:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/intermediate-period-half-bond-events/
and to the extent that is right, you can use that cycle as a guide).
Places like tropical South America are likely to continue the drenching rains. Basically, the rain bands have moved a bit. In North America we will continue the Rosby Wave “loopy jet stream” with alternating cold/wet and sunny/dry depending on what side of the ‘loop front’ you are on in any given day, so expect variation.
At any rate, that’s what I’m doing…
E.M.Smith says: March 3, 2011 at 2:07 am
The “wild card” is going to be rain.
Mr. Smith
Some time ago I had a look at the best available rain records (Oxford, UK).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ORR.htm
It appears that there is no direct correlation to the SSN, although dip in the SSN and the rainfall for the 50 year period 1870-1920 may be of some interest.
Btw. Thanks for http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/what-is-to-come-sun-wise/
@vukcevic:
I was meaning more that “rain will vary with your location more than with any global change” but it looks like I said it badly. So, for example, Sera ( I think in “tips”) cites an article about Chile curbing energy use due to drought while Colombia is getting floods.
To the extent there is a SSN / Rain correlation, I suspect it will be that kind of ‘rain shift’ where one area gets more and another less. We saw this in The Little Ice Age where Europe got a much increased level of cold rain, but other places got somewhat dryer. Similarly, in about 2200 BC, Egypt had a massive drought during Bond Event 3 that was a cold period event. So if those two bits have similar causes (cold periods due to ???) then the conclusion would be that cold causes Europe to get more rain and North Africa less. I.e. the rain band moves. Somewhat speculative (in that I’ve not done all the homework to prove it) but you get the idea.
Per the posting: Well, you did all the work, I just figured it was useful for long range prediction of a quality suitable for trading decisions… Any time you can get R-squared of 0.9 or better in any trade indicator it has a name. “Golden”…
Geoff Sharp says:
March 2, 2011 at 9:34 pm
What do you put down the higher sunspot count to F10.7 during SC20? A negative L&P effect perhaps?
And if we go past 1996 the heavy flare activity during 2002 showing a large deviation
between F10.7 and sunspots before aligning again later. Please do not show me your concocted version of the F10.7 record.
Neither SC20 nor 2002 were any different in that respect:
http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-obs-syn-Canadian-F107.png
Geoff Sharp says:
March 2, 2011 at 10:26 pm
A presentation by Tom Woods shows F10.7 flux varied by 3.8% when comparing the last 2 minima while EUV varied 15%
Woods questions the calibration of the part of the EUV flux he observed.
The EUV results are backed up by the lowest ever recording of the ionosphere.
The density of the ionosphere is not the same as the conductivity [which is what is the important issue] and the Joule heating by electrical currents play a role as well.
vukcevic says:
March 3, 2011 at 1:14 am
but they are unwilling to consider all alternatives.
You misunderstand how experts work. They are not ‘unwilling’. They do consider alternatives and weed out the nonsense.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 2, 2011 at 6:07 am
“They might say something along these lines:
http://www.physics.iisc.ernet.in/~bidya_karak/karak_goa.pdf”
The charts of observed sunspot numbers end in the year 2000.
Can you say “hide the decline”? I knew you could.
rbateman says:
March 2, 2011 at 9:13 pm
“…Nice Finger Puzzle image there : http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png…”
Thanks Rob/Leif, I didn’t realise the polar field had stayed that low.
What happens if it continues at low level for the next couple of decades?
Tenuc says:
March 3, 2011 at 7:37 am
Thanks Rob/Leif, I didn’t realise the polar field had stayed that low.
What happens if it continues at low level for the next couple of decades?
The polar fields were low over the past minimum signalling a low solar cycle 24 [as we are now having]. Then near solar max, the polar fields disappear [this is happening now] and thereafter they rebuild, ready for the next cycle. The reversal of the polar fields in the North has already started. This may mean [but is a wild guess only] that they will have time to build to be stronger than they were last minimum. If so, solar cycle 25 will be larger than SC24. We shall see.
E.M.Smith says: March 3, 2011 at 4:20 am
………………………..
Mr. Smith
You were absolutely correct. Rain patterns are more regional than global phenomena.
I took another look at the Oxfordshire records, and an unusual 40+ year pattern emerged. Most interesting bit about it that the periods 1920 -1960 and 1960-2000 match very closely (Rsq = 0.73). There is no correlation with the CETs or the AMO. Very odd ?!
Have to think about that one.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ORR.htm (see graphs 2 & 3)
On Nature’s website
David Hathaway said:
This theoretical model is diametrically opposed to the observations of Hathaway & Rightmire (2010) Science, 327, 1350. Our observations represent the most accurate and complete measurements of the meridional flow over solar cycle 23 and indicate that the flow was slow at the start of the cycle and fast at the end; the opposite of what this theoretical model requires. The authors’ comments on our observations can be found only in the supplemental information; hidden from view for most readers. They suggest that the variations we measure are irrelevant because they only represent the near surface layers. Yet, their entire meridional circulation system is built on the flow observed in these very same layers. If they want to match the speed of the flow at the base of the convection zone to the equatorward drift of the sunspot latitude zones by using the surface layer flow speed then they should agree that the variations in the surface flow speed represent the variations in the deeper layers as well. Unfortunately for their model, to accept this means their model is in conflict with the observations.
Reuters article at http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/02/us-sunspots-idUSTRE72187420110302 says:
DUH.
Sorry, but that is like saying, “We’ve noticed that when the electricity is off, there are no magnetic fields around the wires.”
This is one of those cases of scientists stating something that is beyond patently obvious, but getting credit for saying it, anyway. Like saying, “When dogs bite, it is when their jaw closes and their teeth come together.”
Oy yoy yoy. . . . Aye carumba!
Walter Dnes says:
March 2, 2011 at 11:22 pm
> 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.
And if the minimum is a few decades long (e.g. Maunder or Dalton) that implies…
NASA said WHAT?!?!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That was the language that the NASA scientist used during the conference wrt the atmosphere expanding and contracting with solar max and min. There was also a visual as she said this, but the link was not provided.
Plainly the atmosphere is absorbing a great deal more energy at solar max and responding by “puffing up” (thier language). Lest we get a lecture from Dr S, the atmosphere is extremely thin at those altitudes, so the “heat” in these parts of the atmosphere is not going to effect the temps of the atmosphere here below. However, I would like to say that another interpretation of the energy that is building in the upper atmosphere is electrical. That tenuous area is ionized and is building an electrical charge that is greater at solar max.
Why should you take that interpretation seriously, rather than assume that NASA is correct, and that themal energy explains all of the expansion and contraction? There is a series of pathways that electrical energy is taking in the earth’s atmosphere, and if you have not been familiarized with the Van Allen belts before, these are two belts rotating around earth, the inner belt positive ions and the outer, electrons. These store electrical energy, and so does the earth’s highly ionozed upper atmosphere. Lightning and other weather events are entirely possibly discharge breakdowns in the circuit between earth and the energy build-ups in the upper atmosphere.
Zeke the Sneak says:
March 3, 2011 at 11:01 am
if you have not been familiarized with the Van Allen belts before, these are two belts rotating around earth, the inner belt positive ions and the outer, electrons. These store electrical energy, and so does the earth’s highly ionozed upper atmosphere. Lightning and other weather events are entirely possibly discharge breakdowns in the circuit between earth and the energy build-ups in the upper atmosphere.
Not quite correct. There is no ‘electrical energy’ involved. The charges are trapped in the Earth’s magnetic field and drift around the Earth [plus bounce back and forth between the two poles]. The ionosphere contains both positive and negative charges and is also not a store of ‘electrical energy’. The expansion/deflation of the thermosphere is thermal, with heat supplied by EUV absorption and from Joule-heating by electrical currents. In any event the density is so low [millions to trillions of times lower than at the surface] that the amount of energy involved is very small. Lightning is not a breakdown of any circuit between the ground and the ionosphere. You gotta get all these little details right.