"All three of these lines of research to point to the familiar sunspot cycle shutting down for a while."

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

Latitude-time plots of jet streams under the Sun's surface show the surprising shutdown of the solar cycle mechanism. New jet streams typically form at about 50 degrees latitude (as in 1999 on this plot) and are associated with the following solar cycle 11 years later. New jet streams associated with a future 2018-2020 solar maximum were expected to form by 2008 but are not present even now, indicating a delayed or missing Cycle 25.

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.

Average magnetic field strength in sunspot umbras has been steadily declining for over a decade. The trend includes sunspots from Cycles 22, 23, and (the current cycle) 24.

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/

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
461 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Moderate Republican
June 15, 2011 4:39 pm

The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as “contextomy” or “quote mining”, is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning
DCA says at June 15, 2011 at 3:34 pm ““Gravity isn’t a useful theory because Newton was a nice man.”
That is an out of context quote, and is a thus a logically fallacy.

Moderate Republican
June 15, 2011 4:46 pm

Roger Knights says at June 15, 2011 at 3:52 pm ” Our side”
Truth and scientific accuracy has a side? Care to explain that?

Moderate Republican
June 15, 2011 4:50 pm

lowercasefred says at June 15, 2011 at 3:58 pm ” I have often heard experts express opinions at complete odds to evidence and science. When caught, they don’t recant their opinions, they obfuscate.”
Well thank goodness none of that happens here! I mean the flood of corrections coming from the frequent posters here has been just outstanding.

lowercasefred
June 15, 2011 4:51 pm

Moderate Republican: 4:33
Quote from MR:
“NASA solar physicist David Hathaway said of the sun’s Great Conveyor Belt has been running at record-high speeds for the past five years. “I believe this could explain the unusually deep solar minimum we’ve been experiencing,” says Hathaway.”
Uhh:
“The Sun’s Great Conveyor Belt has slowed to a record-low crawl, according to research by NASA solar physicist David Hathaway. “It’s off the bottom of the charts,” he says. “This has important repercussions for future solar activity.”‘
http://www.space.com/2397-sun-currents-fire-slow-record.html
Notice how I provided a link?
You are starting to look more and more like a troll.

lowercasefred
June 15, 2011 4:57 pm

@Moderate Republican,
Are you “related” to Ludwig Van Quixote?

lowercasefred
June 15, 2011 5:12 pm

Moderators:
Please see my 4:51. If “Moderate Republican” cannot supply a link for his quote I believe you should consider that he may a troll, interested only in creating confusion.
MR; Please understand that I consider honest debate to be essential, if I am mistaken, I will be happy to be corrected.

Andrew30
June 15, 2011 5:18 pm

“Well the recent solar minimum hasn’t stop the warming”
Yes it has.
It has not warmed significantly since the end of the last maxima.
Last year was ‘the warmest’ in the last 10 years (El Nino)
This year is tracking to be the coldest in 20 or 30 year (La Lina)
Those effects, like Mt. Pinatubo are Very Short Term Fluctuations.
A grand solar minimum appears to have a Generational effect (20+ years).
It takes time, the Earth has a lot of mass.
We shall see what actually happens, no models are needed, it may happen for real.
Note: El Nino and La Nina are Caused by Something.

June 15, 2011 5:23 pm

Andrew30 says:
June 15, 2011 at 4:30 pm
The Dalton Minimum was a period of low solar activity, from about 1790-1830 that coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures. The Year Without a Summer, in 1816, occurred during the Dalton Minimum.
Caused by several volcanic eruptions, in 1809, 1812 (Mayon), and 1815 (Tambora)
1. The Sun was quiet for 40 years.
2. The Earth got very cold.
3. We don’t understand the exact relationship.
4. No correlation with CO2.

The Oort Minimum was a period of low solar activity, from about 1010-1060
1. The Sun was quiet for 50 years.
2. The Earth was very warm [vikings thrived in Greenland].
3. We don’t understand the exact relationship.
4. No correlation with CO2

Moderate Republican
June 15, 2011 5:48 pm

lowercasefred says June 15, 2011 at 5:12 pm “If “Moderate Republican” cannot supply a link for his quote I believe you should consider that he may a troll, interested only in creating confusion.”
Sorry – I did in fact miss posting the link, was on my Blackberry which is a pain to use for this site, but it should have been posted.
However, does that mean that the standard for being a troll is anyone who makes an assertion that cannot provide a citation? Yes/no?

June 15, 2011 5:52 pm

“Both of these UHIs however do not contribute to warming trends over the 20th century because the influences of the cities on surface temperatures have not changed over this time. ”
Wow.
The effect is not static over time and not confined to areas classified as urban.
The heat island effect does change over time as intensity of use increases; irrigation, flora cover etc., water use change with economic activity level and size.
GHG are well mixed, but at sources– at the surface– concentrations are higher, though the depth is slight. (it will affect ground level readings, though affect global and near surface temps negligibly.)
But I digress.
LW radiation doesn’t not vary quite as much albedo. To get back to the subject at hand, GHG warming affects only LW radiation. Supposed effects of solar minima are due to decreased absorption of SW radiation (ie, increased albedo). Now, if there is a drop in heating, GHG warming will prevent a drop in temperature commensurate ; that’s it’s nature.
Thank god for global warming!

DCA
June 15, 2011 5:59 pm

Moderate Republican says:
June 15, 2011 at 4:39 pm
The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as “contextomy” or “quote mining”, is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning
DCA says at June 15, 2011 at 3:34 pm ““Gravity isn’t a useful theory because Newton was a nice man.”
That is an out of context quote, and is a thus a logically fallacy.
MR,
Since you claim the quote is “out of context” , you’re claiming you know the context and you really are Gavin. Would you care to share the context with us?
Perhaps Connolley missed that one.

June 15, 2011 6:01 pm

(It amazes me how I can put letters and words in the wrong place and not notice!)

Andrew30
June 15, 2011 6:02 pm

The Medieval Maximum was a period of very high solar activity, from about 1100-1250
1. The Sun was vary active for 50 years.
2. The Earth was very warm [vikings thrived in Greenland].
3. We don’t understand the exact relationship.
4. No correlation with CO2

Editor
June 15, 2011 6:05 pm

Moderate Republican says:
June 15, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Ric Werme says at June 15, 2011 at 2:40 pm “The poor quality ground record and GISS’ adjustments have more problems”
Yet multiple independent studies confirm the same warming trends, such as this one.

Global surface temperature trends, based on land and marine data, show warming of about 0.8°C over the last 100 years. This rate of warming is sometimes questioned because of the existence of well-known Urban Heat Islands (UHIs). We show examples of the UHIs at London and Vienna, where city center sites are warmer than surrounding rural locations. Both of these UHIs however do not contribute to warming trends over the 20th century because the influences of the cities on surface temperatures have not changed over this time. In the main part of the paper, for China, we compare a new homogenized station data set with gridded temperature products and attempt to assess possible urban influences using sea surface temperature (SST) data sets for the area east of the Chinese mainland. We show that all the land-based data sets for China agree exceptionally well and that their residual warming compared to the SST series since 1951 is relatively small compared to the large-scale warming. Urban-related warming over China is shown to be about 0.1°C decade−1 over the period 1951–2004, with true climatic warming accounting for 0.81°C over this period.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008JD009916.shtml

That’s been touched on here, see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/18/finally-an-honest-quantification-of-urban-warming-by-a-major-climate-scientist/ which says

Jones identifies an urban warming signal in China of 0.1 degrees C per decade. Or, if you prefer, 1 degree C per century. Not negligible by any means.

0.1°C per decade over 5 decades – that’s 0.5°C. “true climatic warming accounting for 0.81°C”
However, given it’s a Phil Jones paper on Chinese UHI I’m not about to spend $25 to read it. I hope it’s better than an earlier report which took people years before they came up with proof that Jones couldn’t say where the weather stations were.

Received 5 February 2008; accepted 28 May 2008; published 30 August 2008.
Citation: Jones, P. D., D. H. Lister, and Q. Li (2008), Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D16122, doi:10.1029/2008JD009916.

The earlier paper is one of the landmark papers in Phil Jones’ history and just reading the saga of trying to get the Supplemental Information for the paper will take an hour. Of all the reasons why we won’t give Dr. Jones the time of day, this is near the head of the pack.
Steve McIntyre offered this summary:

Here’s a quick synopsis. The overarching issue in the Chinese network controversy is whether the development of urban heat islands in the 20th century had a significant impact on land temperature indices such as CTUTEM and GISS. Jones et al 1990’s importance in this argument was its conclusion that the contribution of urbanization to 20th century trends was negligible (no more than ~0.05 deg from 1900-1990.) It was cited as authority for this claim in both IPCC TAR (2001) and AR4(2007), along with a couple of other articles by closely allied authors (Peterson, Parker). The Chinese network of Jones et al 1990 was one of the main props: Jones purported to demonstrate the unimportance of the urbanization contribution by showing that there was a negligible difference in temperature trends between urban and rural sites in China between 1954-1983.

So, the old paper reported ~0.05 deg from 1900-1990, the new one implies ~0.90 degrees – an 18-fold increase. I think you’ve been fooled by the spin in the abstract. “Relatively small” – not!
See
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/07/phil-jones-and-the-chinese-weather-station-corruption/
http://climateaudit.org/2010/11/03/phil-jones-and-the-china-network-part-1/
http://climateaudit.org/2010/11/04/phil-jones-and-the-china-network-part-2/
http://climateaudit.org/2010/11/06/phil-jones-and-the-china-network-part-3/
One thing we’ve found with looking at some of the USHCN stations is that UHI can be seen in pretty small towns. Dr. Pielke Sr.’s references to land use changes having a big impact are part of it.
Perhaps I’ll hunt down a few of those links too.

lowercasefred
June 15, 2011 6:08 pm

@Moderate Republican:
“However, does that mean that the standard for being a troll is anyone who makes an assertion that cannot provide a citation? Yes/no?”
Certainly not, but if you notice your quote says the conveyor belt has been at high speed, while mine, and all I can find, says “low speed”, off the charts to the low side (I’ve been following this for a while).
What gives?

June 15, 2011 6:08 pm

Leif, excellent point. Do we know the relative activity levels? Also, can we isolate any particular spectra (eg, was UV or magnetic energy different in any of these warm and cool minima)?

oMan
June 15, 2011 6:18 pm

Folks, I am a little disappointed at the lowered tone in the house since this “Moderate Republican” showed up. Here we were studying the interesting (and I think very important) news about the Sun’s looming quiescence; and suddenly we’re stuck in a junior-high mode? With MR hogging the thread and offering “snappy” comebacks? Sigh.
Can’t we please go back to the science now?
[Reply: Good point. Moderate Republican needs to take a few days off. ~dbs, mod.]

Andrew30
June 15, 2011 6:44 pm

The Oort Minimum was a period of solar activity, from about 1010-1060 that was about the same as occurred as normal activity in the late 1800s and 1900s.
It was really quite a high value to be classified as a solar minima. The Oort Minimum was shorter in duration and had the highest solar activity of any episode in the last 1000 years to be given the label ‘solar minima’. Perhaps it met the ‘minimum’ requirements for the label.

June 15, 2011 6:58 pm

Attacking science is what science is all about.

Editor
June 15, 2011 7:02 pm

Ric Werme says:
June 15, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Yep, here’s more links. Here’s a good one on the older Jones paper.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/01/climategate-intensifies-jones-and-wang-hid-chinese-station-data-issues/
An another, http://www.eenews.net/public/25/14363/features/documents/2010/02/16/document_gw_01.pdf from the Texas Attorney General’s office, that says on page 20:

In August 2007, Keenan submitted a formal complaint about Wang to the State University of New York at Albany after Wang refused to retract the claim. Although the university found “evidence of the alleged fabrication of results,” it exonerated Wang. Ironically, Phil Jones submitted a report to the Journal of Geophysical Research re-examining temperatures in eastern China. His report concluded that not only was the urban heat effect not “negligible” it could account for 40% of the warming shown in the study.

More on UHI. BTW, if you visit http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/categories.html and select uhi in the left column you’ll see a lot more.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/31/uhi-is-alive-and-well/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/10/spencer-global-urban-heat-island-effect-study-an-update/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/26/uhi-study-of-the-uk-armagh-observatory/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/19/impacts-of-land-use-land-cover-change-on-climate/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/11/georgia-tech-50-percent-of-the-usa-warming-that-has-occurred-since-1950-is-due-to-land-use-changes/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/02/new-study-shows-how-local-land-use-changes-can-affect-surface-temperature/
And finally, perhaps we can get back on track?
Here are the previous posts about the fading sun spots:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/18/suns-magnetics-remain-in-a-funk-sunspots-may-be-on-their-way-out/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/15/livingston-and-penn-in-eos-are-sunspots-different-during-this-solar-minimum/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/13/sunspots-today-a-cheshire-cat-new-essay-from-livingston-and-penn/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/
That oldest paper is actually the most interesting as it goes into the methodology of the several different ways they looked at the issue to verify what they were seeing was real. A refreshing change of pace compared to anything from Phil Jones.

Corey S.
June 15, 2011 7:06 pm

Anthony, Hot Air has linked to you in their thread about the decreased solar activity. It is to an older thread on a possible Dalton Minimum, though.

Update II: Anthony Watts and David Archibald explore another hypothesis of a less-onerous Dalton Minimum. Note the graphs showing solar activity in Cycle 24 and also the North American snow cover over the last 40 years. Since the 1970s — the last cooling period — the snow cover has abated significantly, and hasn’t expanded the last four cold winters, but we will need to see whether this starts expanding in the absence of solar activity.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/15/a-new-ice-age-approaches/

savethesharks
June 15, 2011 7:08 pm

Pamela Gray says:
June 15, 2011 at 6:51 am
I hate this phrase, “It’s the -blank- stupid” because it speaks of an underlying lack of basic scientific knowledge in physics and chemistry, let alone Earth science, combined with a lack of understanding regarding proper statistical analysis of noisy, hard to measure, baseline chaotic data in which is buried both CO2 changes and Sun changes on Earth’s temperatures.
==============
I hate that phrase, too. But that’s kind of a red herring….don’t ya think?
Your seemingly equal treatment (in the same sentence) of both CO2 and the and the thing that occupies 99% of the Solar System’s mass…is just plain awkward, Pamela.
Just awkward….illogically awkward.
There is no (I repeat, NO) comparison to be made in the same sentence…between CO2 and the Sun.
I understand your frustration at the quickness to jump to conclusions on both sides.
On the other hand…the two “sides” in this case…do not exist.
There is no comparison: i.e between the CAGW conjecture…and the unproven (but highly more plausible) effects of solar variability (however minute)
No comparison between the two. None.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

June 15, 2011 7:14 pm

Another “bombshell” from NASA, via the The Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7819201/Nasa-warns-solar-flares-from-huge-space-storm-will-cause-devastation.html):
Nasa warns solar flares from ‘huge space storm’ will cause devastation
* * *
“National power grids could overheat and air travel severely disrupted while electronic items, navigation devices and major satellites could stop working after the Sun reaches its maximum power in a few years.
Senior space agency scientists believe the Earth will be hit with unprecedented levels of magnetic energy from solar flares after the Sun wakes “from a deep slumber” sometime around 2013, The Daily Telegraph can disclose….”
Now what do I believe? (In one case they must be making it up… Perhaps the three new scientific papers? Can’t be the “exclusive” in the The Daily Telegraph that has no citations other than a reference to a Dr Richard Fisher, the director of Nasa’s Heliophysics division.)

Jeremy
June 15, 2011 7:21 pm

This is to Mr Troll and you know who you are, why the sudden offensive?
Please explain why suddenly there is a need to attack everyone and anyone on this thread when there is a lead story about the possibility that the SUN might have an influence on the climate?
Mr Troll are you a true believer that cannot accept that anything other than man-made CO2 will influence climate?
Mr Troll do you find the “anecdotal” (so far) evidence about the SUN’s influence a frightening threat to your core beliefs?
Mr Troll. The difference between you and the majority of people here is that the regulars here are quite OPEN to the possibility that man-made CO2 is NOT the one true GOD of the sky. Most of us here believe in a panoply of GODS influencing the skies and that monotheism is just pure dogmatic bloody minded ignorance.

Frank K.
June 15, 2011 7:37 pm

I think I’m going to stay out of this thread…it smells like troll…

1 12 13 14 15 16 19