I’ve managed to get a copy of the official press release provided by the Southwest Research Institute Planetary Science Directorate to MSM journalists, for today’s stunning AAS announcement and it is reprinted in full here:
WHAT’S DOWN WITH THE SUN?
MAJOR DROP IN SOLAR ACTIVITY PREDICTED
A missing jet stream, fading spots, and slower activity near the poles say that our Sun is heading for a rest period even as it is acting up for the first time in years, according to scientists at the National Solar Observatory (NSO) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL).
As the current sunspot cycle, Cycle 24, begins to ramp up toward maximum, independent studies of the solar interior, visible surface, and the corona indicate that the next 11-year solar sunspot cycle, Cycle 25, will be greatly reduced or may not happen at all.
The results were announced at the annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society, which is being held this week at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces:
http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/SPD2011/
“This is highly unusual and unexpected,” Dr. Frank Hill, associate director of the NSO’s Solar Synoptic Network, said of the results. “But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.”
Spot numbers and other solar activity rise and fall about every 11 years, which is half of the Sun’s 22-year magnetic interval since the Sun’s magnetic poles reverse with each cycle. An immediate question is whether this slowdown presages a second Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period with virtually no sunspots during 1645-1715.
Hill is the lead author on one of three papers on these results being presented this week. Using data from the Global Oscillation Network Group (GONG) of six observing stations around the world, the team translates surface pulsations caused by sound reverberating through the Sun into models of the internal structure. One of their discoveries is an east-west zonal wind flow inside the Sun, called the torsional oscillation, which starts at
mid-latitudes and migrates towards the equator. The latitude of this wind stream matches the new spot formation in each cycle, and successfully predicted the late onset of the current Cycle 24.
“We expected to see the start of the zonal flow for Cycle 25 by now,” Hill explained, “but we see no sign of it. This indicates that the start of Cycle 25 may be delayed to 2021 or 2022, or may not happen at all.”
In the second paper, Matt Penn and William Livingston see a long-term weakening trend in the strength of sunspots, and predict that by Cycle 25 magnetic fields erupting on the Sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Spots are formed when intense magnetic flux tubes erupt from the interior and keep cooled gas from circulating back to the interior. For typical sunspots this magnetism has a strength of 2,500 to 3,500 gauss
(Earth’s magnetic field is less than 1 gauss at the surface); the field must reach at least 1,500 gauss to form a dark spot.
Using more than 13 years of sunspot data collected at the McMath-Pierce Telescope at Kitt Peak in Arizona, Penn and Livingston observed that the average field strength declined about 50 gauss per year during Cycle 23 and now in Cycle 24. They also observed that spot temperatures have risen exactly as expected for such changes in the magnetic field. If the trend continues, the field strength will drop below the 1,500 gauss threshold and
spots will largely disappear as the magnetic field is no longer strong enough to overcome convective forces on the solar surface.
Moving outward, Richard Altrock, manager of the Air Force’s coronal research program at NSO’s Sunspot, NM, facilities has observed a slowing of the “rush to the poles,” the rapid poleward march of magnetic activity observed in the Sun’s faint corona. Altrock used four decades of observations with NSO’s 40-cm (16-inch) coronagraphic telescope at Sunspot.
“A key thing to understand is that those wonderful, delicate coronal features are actually powerful, robust magnetic structures rooted in the interior of the Sun,” Altrock explained. “Changes we see in the corona reflect changes deep inside the Sun.”
Altrock used a photometer to map iron heated to 2 million degrees C (3.6 million F). Stripped of half of its electrons, it is easily concentrated by magnetism rising from the Sun. In a well-known pattern, new solar activity emerges first at about 70 degrees latitude at the start of a cycle, then towards the equator as the cycle ages. At the same time, the new magnetic fields push remnants of the older cycle as far as 85 degrees poleward.
“In cycles 21 through 23, solar maximum occurred when this rush appeared at an average latitude of 76 degrees,” Altrock said. “Cycle 24 started out late and slow and may not be strong enough to create a rush to the poles, indicating we’ll see a very weak solar maximum in 2013, if at all. If the rush to the poles fails to complete, this creates a tremendous dilemma for the theorists, as it would mean that Cycle 23’s magnetic field will not completely disappear from the polar regions (the rush to the poles accomplishes this feat). No one knows what the Sun will do in that case.”
All three of these lines of research to point to the familiar sunspot cycle shutting down for a while.
“If we are right,” Hill concluded, “this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate.”
# # #
Media teleconference information: This release is the subject of a media
teleconference at the current meeting of the American Astronomical Society’s
Solar Physics Division (AAS/SPD). The telecon will be held at 11 a.m. MDT
(17:00 UTC) on Tuesday, 14 June. Bona fide journalists are invited to attend
the teleconference and should send an e-mail to the AAS/SPD press officer,
Craig DeForest, at deforest@boulder.swri.edu, with the subject heading “SPD:
SOLAR MEDIA TELECON”, before 16:00 UTC. You will receive dial-in information
before the telecon.
These results have been presented at the current meeting of the AAS/SPD.
Citations:
16.10: “Large-Scale Zonal Flows During the Solar Minimum — Where Is Cycle
25?” by Frank Hill, R. Howe, R. Komm, J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, T.P. Larson,
J. Schou & M. J. Thompson.
17.21: “A Decade of Diminishing Sunspot Vigor” by W. C. Livingston, M. Penn
& L. Svalgard.
18.04: “Whither Goes Cycle 24? A View from the Fe XIV Corona” by R. C.
Altrock.
Source:
Southwest Research Institute Planetary Science Directorate
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~deforest/SPD-sunspot-release/SPD_solar_cycle_release.txt
Supplemental images: http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~deforest/SPD-sunspot-release/
No, Smokey you are still wrong and Cassie King remains wrong.
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. it is inherently deceptive
smokey said “The Met office’s super expensive supercomputer predicted a “barbecue summer” for last year. That competely wrong prediction is typical of model outputs.”
Weather does not equal climate. presenting weather modeling as evidence as to the veracity of climate modeling is completely bogus. That makes this a strawman argument, and you wrong. Again.
[This is the last time I am going to ask: please stop shouting with bold font. Bold should be used sparingly, if at all. ~dbs, mod.]
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. it is inherently deceptive
Mark Wilson saysJune 15, 2011 at 9:04 am “They have failed completely when they try to hindcast weather.”
[Bold font snipped. ~dbs, mod.]
Regarding the “turnaround” by NASA: I get the impression is that it is not so much a change of opinion of some scientists as it as the allowance of other voices to be heard. That can only be good. The messianic attitude of the Alarmists is one reason I am a sceptic, especially when they have so zealously sought to silence and dismiss dissent – a real red flag.
Correlation is not causation, but it takes a very special kind of person to dismiss correlation out of hand in order to promote his pet theory, especially when there are so many unknowns. I am 65 years old and I have seen enough to know that there is very often some subtle causation underlying the correlation that takes time to tease out.
If the alarmists are upset that they are ridiculed and dismissed by some they might consider looking in a mirror for the cause.
[snip]
Moderate Republican claims that models are proven because they “successfully” predict the current warming.
I point out that these same models fail completely when they try to do hindcasting.
MR accuses me of using strawmen.
Sheesh, is that really the best he can do?
paulhan says:
June 15, 2011 at 5:55 am
> What “alarms” me about this, is the mentioning of the Maunder Minimum. Why not the Dalton Minimum?
Until this AAS announcement, most people have been suggesting something like the Dalton minimum. Now with multiple lines of research raising the possibility of multiple cycles of no visible spots, that opens up suggestions of something closer to the Maunder Minimum which featured some 70 years of very few spots.
“If we are right,” Hill concluded, “this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate.”
I thought sunspots or a lack thereof shouldn’t affect our climate. If this article is right about a minimum, we’ll find out probably within a decade or so.
ferd berple June 15, 2011 at 7:59 am:
Ignoring reality is what Mankind is supremely good at. Science would be second and must overcome the first, in order to dominate perception. This is the see-saw that EVERYONE sits on. Thanks for the raising our seat. GK
Bruce Cobb says:
June 15, 2011 at 7:36 am
Thought by whom? And why? Nothing to do with little things like funding, careers, egos?
Thought by those who have performed a fairly straightforward calculation using a well established formula which defines the relationship between energy anfd temperature. I doubt if anyone got any funding for it. If they did – I want my share.
Matt G says “This was enough to stop global warming at least over the recent decade, so it’s fair to say already wrong before this period in question even occurs.” at June 15, 2011 at 9:12 am
That is a factually incorrect statement Matt.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510
If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20.
Last year’s analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line.
“The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn’t significant at the standard 95% level that people use,” Professor Jones told BBC News.
“Basically what’s changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years – and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years.
“It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that’s why longer series – 20 or 30 years – would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis.”
Can someone please explain how “alarmist” is not pejorative labeling?
RB says. quoting ‘msn’:
June 15, 2011 at 1:45 am
Even then [given Maunder Minimum Sun conditions], however, he [Gavin Schmidt] estimated that the effect of greenhouse-gas emissions would be on the order of 10 times as great. “What you might see over a 20- to 30-year period is a slight slowdown in the pace of warming,” Schmidt said. “In terms of how we should think about climate change prediction in the future, reducing emissions and so on, it really wouldn’t make much of a difference.”
Right, Gavin alleges that despite just having very effectively prevented a Maunder Minimum via CO2 production, we should still continue trying futilely to prevent net increases in atmospheric Global CO2 concentrations by next having the U.S. itself reproduce the current real world Fascist-Socialist European experiments which have already resulted solely in producing some of the nascent negative side effects of Gavin’s alleged “cure” to his alleged “disease”. With more to come!
Meanwhile, a large number of people living in India and China, who are the main alleged victims of the alleged fossil fuel CO2 = CAGW disease, just keep chugging along in a more rational fashion, producing the very same fossil fuel CO2 and energy which will instead be necessary to the effect the real cure to their own painfully real disease, underdevelopment – and a course which now will even prevent the effects of a Maunder Minimum to boot, as revealed by Gavin himself!
Then, as per the usual Climate Science “method” and contrary to even his own 15 yr. suggestion regarding the time period of no warming which would perhaps cast doubt upon the apparent CO2=GW hypothesis, Gavin ignores the likely fact that there has been no atmospheric warming over the past 15 – 17 years’ divergence of Model predictions of temperatures vs CO2 concentrations, and refuses to allow even the possibility of an extension of this most recent period’s behavior, something which should and would otherwise cast even greater doubt upon the CO2=GW hypothesis, if not effectively falsify it.
Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury, have you reached a verdict?
Re Moderate Republican: 6/15/2011; 9:54
“If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20.”
Surely you know that statistic signifies correlation, not causation. As many have pointed out, there is a mass of data showing that CO2 increase lags temperature increase. There is robust theory that oceanic temperature increase releases CO2 and other less robust theories (e.g. decomposition of algae trapped in ice). Whether there is a positive feedback where CO2 then feeds into further warming and other positive feedbacks is the argument.
Moderate Republican says:
June 15, 2011 at 9:54 am
The one thing that is clear beyond the shadow of a doubt is that Phil Jones intentionally lied for the purpose of deceiving the public about climate change when he “hid the decline.” Why are you citing someone that we know to be a liar?
Is it just me, or does “new” commenter “Moderate Republican,” with his frequent use of bold, tossing around the “d-word,” and multiple assertions that sum up to ‘The (C)AGW-concluding climate scientists have always been right! It is you who is completely wrong!’, sound amazingly like the banned pest “Villabolo” (it was something like that, to use one of his aliases) to anyone else?
ModRep says: “Can someone please explain how ‘alarmist’ is not pejorative labeling?”
Sure, glad you asked. Calling someone a “denialist”, “denier”, etc., is deliberately conflating an opposing scientific view with reprehensible Holocaust deniers. It is a vicious and underhanded insult. On the other hand, those who are attempting to alarm the public with frightening and baseless predictions of looming climate catastrophe are properly referred to as alarmists, because that is exactly what they are trying to do:
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
~~ H. L. Mencken
Alarmism in its many forms has always been used by rabble-rousers for their own aggrandizement. Their unstated goal is to rule over the ‘stupid’ proles. Mencken also wrote:
‘The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.
Smokey,
As I said on another thread. Is it just me or are there more trolls here now that Romm no longer allows comments?
REPLY: Romm allows comments, but comments are highly edited and/or censored there – Anthony
Re: Moderate republican :10:15
“Can someone please explain how “alarmist” is not pejorative labeling?”
I checked the dictionary definition and I concede your point. The definitions I find emphasize the point that an alarmist “needlessly” or “falsely” raises an alarm. since that seems to be the accepted usage, I will no longer use the term, although when I used it I was doing so to simply signify one who raises an alarm (IMO before the case is proven).
Wow the anti-science clerics are out in full force on WUWT doing serious damage control.
Judging by the weak arguments put forward here, the CAGW believers seem very much on the defensive.
Whether, the discussion here is reflective of how this will play out in the media and with the mainstream public is unclear. What is clear is that any suggestion that “something else” other than HUMANS might be possibly influencing the recent and current climate is a huge paradigm shift for so many folks who have been weened on so many lies after lies after lies. (And environmentalist hyperbole is lying as far as I am concerned, as it is stretching the truth much further than we have any justifiable reason to)
Moderate Republican, 9:54 am:
”
Matt G says “This was enough to stop global warming at least over the recent decade,…..
That is a factually incorrect statement Matt.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510
“The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn’t significant at the standard 95% level that people use,” Professor Jones told BBC News.
“Basically what’s changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years – and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant ”
”
MR, since when has 16 years been “the recent decade”? You complain endlessly (and often incorrectly) that others are attacking strawmen then you blatantly do it yourself. The mind boggles!
RE: REPLY: Romm allows comments, but comments are highly edited and/or censored there – Anthony
To Anthony’s credit is is allowing more debate here. Thank you.
(still would like to know why “denier” is pejorative but “alarmist” isn’t)
If the alarm is justified then raising it is admirable. The problem is that the globe is not heating significantly, south sea islands are not disappearing and the world is not doomed which is not the only, but sufficient, reason for having a low opinion of alarmists.
In this new case I think we should be careful not to go overboard in the other direction. Sceptics should have time to check it. More real research should be done. Indeed everything that the warming alarmists have been opposed to.
In the long term, or hopefully just medium term, we will have a spacegoing civilisation which will make it possible to geoengineer the Earth from orbit. Then neiither catyastrophic warming nor little ice ages need be a problem. My suspicion is that only one side will support that but that suspicion depends on the alarmists not actually believing in or caring about their own scare story & them simply being anti-technology Luddites.
I will wait for the minimum to occur before I start gloating or saying ‘I told you so”. This is merely a forecast and has several variables to consider including:
1. If it actually happens
2. How long it lasts/ and the severity
3. How much it actually and measurably affects temperature
There are many factors involved in long term temperature such as Solar Cycles, Atmospheric gases, AMO, PDO, and others we may have not even determined yet. The next 20-30 years will be a good test of several theories (including AGW) on what has the MOST affect on our Climate but I doubt any one factor will overwhelm the others and what we will end up with is fluctuations like we have always had. End of the day moral is we are in the early stages of understanding how our
Climate works and the certainty of anyone who claims they know which factor is most important is highly suspect IMO.
Moderate Republican says:
(still would like to know why “denier” is pejorative but “alarmist” isn’t)
Not all those who believe in CAGW are “alarmists”. You are using “denier” to refer to all skeptics.
Also, “denier” has undertones of “holocaust denier”. “Alarmist” does not have such overtones.
I don’t expect that you will accept this, as you have already shown a double-standard in your posts, but there it is.
Joe Horner says June 15, 2011 at 10:43 am “since when has 16 years been “the recent decade”? You complain endlessly (and often incorrectly) that others are attacking strawmen then you blatantly do it yourself. ”
That is simply wrong Joe.
It is impossible that 95% statistical significance could be reach when the prior decade in question is in the data set given the data in the data set..
In addition “January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. ”
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html