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/
Moderate Republican says:
June 15, 2011 at 11:34 am
No Joe – you are wrong. Several times actually.
You sure you want to keep setting yourself up like this?
1) What Jones is talking about is the temperature trend – you introduced cause in to it. Those are different things, and introducing cause into a discussion of statistical significance constrained to temperature measurements demonstrates you do no understand the concepts here.
Strawman. I didn’t introduce cause and I was also talking about trend. In fact, I was answering your very specific statement that it was “impossible” for a trend to show significance if a period that goes against the trend is included in the data. The nearest I came to “introducing cause” was by offering a perfectly reasonable scenario that disproves your assertion as a quick and I would have thought) simple way of falsifying it.
2) The trend is either significant or not or a given time period. Joe says “By claiming significance at that point, you’re basing your claim on that single, final, year of data.” which is simply wrong.
I agree totally that (assuming no new data) the significance is fixed over a given time period. But, by Dr Jones’ own statement, it was not significant over 15 years, but became significant when an extra year is added. So the time period is not “given” because it changes between the significant and not significant analyses. When a trend is on the borderline of 95% significance (and Dr Jones said, the first 15 years were significant at the 90% level) then it is entirely possible for an outlying new data-point to push it over that (arbitrary) level regardless of what the actual trend is.
3) Joe is wrong again when he states “The “warmest decade on record” has absolutely no meaning whatsoever if it happens to come at the end of a sharp warming period.” That is a non-logical statement – the measurements for a given time period are what they are, and those can be compared to other time period. Year to year variations are included in any time period snapshot.
I’ll concede that, in as far as I carelessly gave you an opportunity to create yet another strawman by my less than pedantic wording.
In the context of this discussion I assumed it was clear that my claim of “absolutely no meaning” would be taken to mean “absolutely no meaning in terms of whether the temperature is continuing to rise or not”. Clearly you either failed to see that obvious implication, or chose to ignore it. In good faith I’ll assume that my (I thought obvious) meaning was less than clear so I happily re-phrase my point thus:
The “warmest decade on record” has absolutely no meaning whatsoever in the context of whether or not temperatures are continuing to rise if it happens to come at the end of a sharp warming period. Of course it will be the warmest on record because it started at the highest temperature so, unless the cooling happens at a catastrophic rate, the average for the decade will be high.
Like I said many months ago in another post, the solar cycle downshift to a Dalton Minimum or worse in combination with a downshift in the AMO is scary!
Re: Moderate Republican : 11:51
“Alarmist as applied here against scientists simply reporting what they are finding clearly fits that description.”
I agree that for the sake of scientific debate we should refrain from the use of pejoratives, but I vehemently disagree that some actions as revealed in the “Climategate” emails depict “scientists simply reporting what they find”.
For these men and such actions I have several pejoratives that Anthony would rather I not use.
Moderate Republican says:
June 15, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Bruce Cobb says June 15, 2011 at 11:44 am “It sure would be a relief to all to be able to reduce the sun’s effect on climate to a simple formula.”
Many people who do not believe the scientific evidence present the complexity of modeling all the variable as a reason why models cannot be trusted and now you as for a simple formula that fully explains the sun’s complete interaction with the earth’s climate?
That is logically inconsistent. Either you are rejecting the validity of other people who do not scientific evidence present the complexity of modeling or are confirming that such modeling is possible.
What??????? I personally think it sure would be nice if Santa Claus exists. That’s a whole logical world away from suggesting he might!
Resourceguy says at June 15, 2011 at 12:13 pm “while the science turns back in the other direction.”
That is an unsupported statement since there is no conclusive, well anything, really from the article in which Hill is quoted. You are making an unsubstantiated leap, which makes the assertion unsupported.
Moderate Republican said: “A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.”
Here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
there (Phil Jones post),
there…
And I said almost cut-and-paste?
Hellow lowercasefred – thanks for the response.
I agree that the language used looks awful, but several independent reviews all concluded that the conclusions reached were scientifically valid.
“None of the e-mails flagged by the AP and sent to three climate scientists viewed as moderates in the field changed their view that global warming is man-made and a threat. Nor did it alter their support of the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which some of the scientists helped write.
“My overall interpretation of the scientific basis for (man-made) global warming is unaltered by the contents of these e-mails,” said Gabriel Vecchi, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist.
Gerald North, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, headed a National Academy of Sciences study that looked at — and upheld as valid — Mann’s earlier studies that found the 1990s were the hottest years in centuries.
“In my opinion the meaning is much more innocent than might be perceived by others taken out of context. Much of this is overblown,” North said.”
http://www.usnews.com/news/energy/articles/2009/12/12/climategate-science-not-faked-but-not-pretty?PageNr=3
See
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
AGW writhing in its death throes now meets collapsing government revenues. Time to euthanize the fallen.
The last month’s economic news indicates we’ve entered recession and only await the 6 month threshold for official acknowledgement despite fudged data from the Ministry of Truth.
Layoffs of state employees have begun with local governments to follow shortly as income and sales tax transfers will not be forthcoming. QED, 2011 is descending staircase into depression.
NASA is doing Muslim outreach, climate scientists will soon be installing weatherstripping.
Bruce Cobb says:
June 15, 2011 at 11:44 am
[several previous exchanges snipped]
Would this be the famous (yet never seen) “back-of-the-envelope” calculation then? Perhaps you could produce it here? Others have asked for it, but been rebuffed, or simply ignored. It sure would be a relief to all to be able to reduce the sun’s effect on climate to a simple formula.
TSI is ~1360 w/m2 which varies by ~1.3 w/m2 (i.e. ~0.1%) over the duration of a solar cycle. These are measured observations.
Now, by the Stefan Boltzmann Law, Energy is directly proportional to the 4th power of temperature, i.e.
E = sigma x T**4 where sigma is the S-B constant, E is energy & T is temperature.
In this case E is solar energy. I’m guessing it’s at this point that most people decide against posting an explanation because there’s a bit of algebra and some long-winded explanations involved, but I’m going to cheat a bit and say that if the initial temperature T0=288K at solar min, it can be shown that, at solar max, the final temperature T1 can be expressed as follows:
T1 = 288 x (1.001)**0.25
Therefore
T1 = 288.072 deg
i.e. ~0.07 deg warmer at solar max than solar min.
Call it 0.1 deg to allow for stronger max/weaker min.
the variability of the sun is/has been looked at but it simply has not been enough to offset the climate forcing from GHG.
That is a factually incorrect statement. All they look at is TSI, ignoring everyting else.
ModerateRepublican is a troll. Do not feed trolls.
[snip by me] in spite of my own advice I still wanted to feed the troll, but managed not to.
That said, I’m looking forward now to seeing how these new papers hold up against the data going forward. I’ve argued in the past that the precautionary principle doesn’t help in situations such as climate change because if you take the action suggested by those who worry too much, a natural cooling may be exacerbated. Since cooling is much more dangerous than heating, it would be very helpful if the CO2 did heat up the earth, but I don’t think the data supports that. If we go into an extended minimum, we’ll get to see if there is a causal link between a quiet sun and cooler temperatures.
A sample size of two (maunder and dalton minimums) is too small to be statistically meaningful. Still, both of them had significant cooling, so my theory is there is a connection and this time around we have much better instrumentation for gathering data. My theory can’t be proven today, so arguing about it is a waste of time. It will take years to prove or disprove. These papers that suggest a quieting sun offer a basis for speculation that cooling will ensue, and over the next few years we’ll get to see what happens. So maybe its time we all relaxed and chilled…
Hello. Anybody there?
So many comments to browse, so little time. I hope this is new and not a retread. I’ve seen one posting already saying these studies mean nothing, that they can’t make much difference, as illustrated by modeling a year ago (GRL paper referencing the 0.3 degree difference if there was a new Minimum… (New Scientist blogger Michael Marshall on “Short, Sharp Science”; see: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/06/new-ice-age-dont-count-on-it.html).
I’ve tried to post a comment (reproduced below); we’ll have to see if the blog owner allows it. Blogger takes issue with some in the mainstream media jumping on this to suggest a new ice age.
———— Posted Comment (awaiting moderation as of ~17:05 EDT) ————
I find it interesting that the potential associated with these new studies that were announced at yesterday’s annual meeting — all three of them from members of the American Astronomical Society’s solar physics division — were disproved a year ago (based on computer modeling using what are likely to be some very significant assumptions).
The FACT is these are a set of unprecedented results (three reportedly independent studies, each from a different angle, and all reaching the same basic conclusion of a solar slowdown of some, as-yet-to-be-determined magnitude). They used modern technology to investigate what the Sun is doing today and, yet, we have no similar data from the past: that’s unfortunate, because we are left to wonder what the Sun is producing (like Gauss emissions and so forth, things we can measure TODAY but could not until the past decade or two) when we have no similar data from legendary periods such as the Little Ice Age, the Maunder Minimum, the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, and so on. Regardless of any assertion of whether the MWP or LIA were global or not, we just don’t have data of a modern type against which to compare, so we don’t know how “big” or “small” or “long” this episode might be — if the investigators actually have it right (and I don’t see why we should doubt them).
I suggest that last years computer modeling is, as a result, an educated guess wrapped up in computer code as to what effect an assumed set of changes in the Sun will have in the future, forgetting that we still do NOT know what drives ocean oscillations, for example.
In the end, these three studies seem to illustrate, again, that we don’t know a great deal about the Sun and its interactions with Earth’s climate. We also don’t know about a lot of other things, such as Ocean Oscillations (Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Pacific Ocean Dipole, ENSO, and so on). Heck, we still don’t understand fully about cloud formation and dissipation, and precipitation, so the GCM’s only have a swag in place for those…
BTW, Space.com had what appears to be a fairly unbiased set of articles on the actual scientific studies that were announced yesterday: http://www.space.com/11960-fading-sunspots-slower-solar-activity-solar-cycle.html
You can call us “deviationists” 😉 (Or dissenters or disbelievers or dissidents.)
The most accurate term is “scoffers,” which is midway between “denier” (too strong) and “skeptic” (too weak). You can pretty-up the word with an adjective, like “science scoffers,” and we can do the same, with “scorcher-scam scoffers.”
I see that warmists continue ad hominem attacks as their default argument. Why am I arguing with people like yourself again when this is your preferred tactic? In answer to your surprise at how skeptics are behaving over this announcement, maybe it has something to do with how belittled so many skeptics have been over the past 10 years for daring to suggest the sun had any major influence. How the media was told those skeptics were kooks. But as I see your belittling continues, why should the skeptics behavior change?
We are cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn’t know.
================
Funny, I think the skeptics have been saying that about the warmist predictions for a decade now. There are still people who claim that the Earth can have “runaway” global warming, that we are at some “tipping point” as if the earth was not naturally trying to find the lowest energy state like everything else in the universe but was instead miraculously holding at some metastable state and any more changes in a trace gas would surely tip the balance of such a googleplex of complexity. Warmists have been trying to tell us for over a decade now just how terrible things were going to be if we kept using cheap energy, and calling the skeptical ones fools and flat-earthers. Now when data comes out that seems to support an alternative view, all those models and predictions and warnings and fire-and-brimstone of the warmistas gets dropped like refried beans out of a babys butt in favor of keeping all the “frothing-at-the-mouth” skeptics ‘grounded in reality’ as some kind of altruistic public service.
Mr Gates, you are hilarious. Just please don’t think that, like some of your compatriots in CO2 fear, that I subscribe to my own droppings.
Moderate Republican says:
June 15, 2011 at 10:58 am
The graphs there come from Hansen’s GISS data which WUWT has pretty much given up on. UAH is, not quite the gold standard, let’s call it the silver standard. The poor quality ground record and GISS’ adjustments have more problems than come from the remote, lower tropospheric temps that UAH has.
Check out WUWT’s reference page http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-climatic-history/ (you can go to the top of any WUWT page and click on Reference Pages too).
With the swing from warm PDO to cool, it makes more sense to view the 200x years as a plateau – the previous decade was still warming, so the next is significantly benefits from that. It is nice to be nearly free from people pointing out each year that was the warmest on record, now they have to look at decades! Maybe next decade 200x will still be the warmest on record.
The first image, Global Heat Content, is a better metric of global warming since the oceans have a much higher heat capacity. BTW, the Y axis should be labeled anomaly or delta from some reference. Obviously the heat content wasn’t negative in 1970.
This warmest decade thing has not escaped WUWT’s attention, please read Bob Tisdale’s analysis at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/22/flashback-bob-tisdales-november-prediction-on-giss-exploiting-the-warmest-decade-on-record/
One reason behind GISS’s warmest whatevers is there data “corrections” have a nasty habit of cooling old temperatures. Pick a day at home when you were growing up. GISS will likely tell you is was really colder on that data than the thermometer said. That’s looked at in several WUWT posts, e.g. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/18/recent-differences-between-giss-and-ncdc-sst-anomaly-data-and-a-look-at-the-multiple-ncdc-sst-datasets/
In summary, don’t try to impress us with data from James Hansen and/or GISS. We don’t trust it, and with good reason.
So anyone who points out the logical fallacy of an assertion here is a troll?
If the people who post here get the science and math wrong what is wrong with pointing that out – since everyone agrees that accuracy matter, no?
Surely if you are interest in truth a little sunlight cannot be a problem?
@tallbloke
You’re right, this solar thread has been distracted by hecklers.
Three major types of data and analysis are unveiled, converging on the conclsion that cycle 25 will likely be a no show; these are:
– Imaging of zonal subsurface flows
– Poleward “march” of flares not happenning
– L&P magnetic field decline
Of these, only the last one, the L&P magnetic field decline, has had a high profile in WUWT discussions. The other two are somewhat “left field” and unexpected – who saw them coming? Leif S probably knew about them but seems to have kept quiet. However the general consensus at WUWT – that a solar minimum has been developing – has been confirmed by the newly announced research findings.
One wonders what other data might be out there below the radar of the WUWT blogosphere which might either support or refute other widely supported predictions such as imminent global cooling?
Are we a little myopic at WUWT in the range of data types we include in the frame of discussion? Anthony has created the world’s leading science blog forum, but its content is largely our responsibility. Is content a little restricted by the aggressive promotion of certain memes and theories each with its own limited supporting data set?
We need to cast the net as widely as possible to give us the best chance not to miss critical clues and have a chance of solving the profound scientific challenge of climate complexity, a much more difficult problem than generally realised with real understanding still far distant.
Moderate Republican says:
Pejoratives (or terms of abuse) are words or grammatical forms that connote negativity and express contempt or distaste.
Alarmist as applied here against scientists simply reporting what they are finding clearly fits that description.
I can agree with that. Show me the scientists “simply reporting what they are finding” and I won’t call them alarmists. Those who are sounding a clarion call for massive policy changes, saying “we must act now”, and refusing to entertain public scrutiny of their “findings” remain “alarmists”.
R. Gates (June 14, 2011 at 9:41 pm) wrote:
“But what if, even with a grand solar minimum we don’t cool that much or at all? What if we continue to warm? What will skeptics think then?”
That’s easy! If the Earth gets warmer and warmer we’ll accept that there’s global warming; we’ll concede defeat. This is what rational people do when faced with facts which contradict their expectations.
So what will you do if the 1998 peak isn’t surpassed by, say, 2011?
The intellectual divide between us is clear, R…. one group holds a view in the light of the evidence before them and the other holds views regardless of the evidence.
There has been a small movement over the past couple years to adjust
or “calibrate” the historic monthly sunspot numbers to reflect our
“modern” understanding of what constitutes a countable “sunspot”.
Fortunately, unlike the GISS and Hadley-controlled databases
reporting earthly historic temperature reports, the revision of the
past to fit current paradigms and models hasn’t quite caught
in the world of solar observers… yet.
If you can see a sunspot, it’s a spot and is counted. If you
can detect a sunspot by other than normal optical means and
viewing conditions, but if you can’t actually see it, it’s
not a spot and doesn’t get counted.
The sunspot database is robust back to the 1750’s.
It doesn’t need proxies, interpolations or adjustments after that
year to validate the information and the month-to-month and
year-to-year comparisons based on it.
For a quick summary of how the earliest observations were made
see:
http://www.cosmosportal.org/articles/view/138714/
P.S. Anthony, many thanks to you and yours from adjusting the
comment box for us oldsters.
Mark Wilson says at June 15, 2011 at 1:44 pm
” All they look at is TSI, ignoring everyting else”
That is another strawman. For it not to be you must prove that all = ever climate scientist and every model only looks at TSI and all climate science is defendant upon that.
Sure you have all of that on hand before making such a broad sweeping statement given that broad sweeping statements are almost always untrue. In any case simply provide the documentation otherwise this remains simply an unsubstantiated assertion.