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/
Andrew30 says:
June 15, 2011 at 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 at least as deep as the Dalton, but a much deeper Grand Minimum occurred 644-688, yet global temps were very warm. See slide 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
Hold on a second guys – sure it is annoying but what exactly has Moderate Republican done wrong?
I’ve been a long time reader here but you guys are being hypocritical if you are saying that you welcome skeptical review of he information but aren’t willing to have someone challenge you.
SkepticalGuy says:
June 15, 2011 at 7:55 pm
Hold on a second guys – sure it is annoying but what exactly has Moderate Republican done wrong?
=======================
Its called a “hijack”. That’s what.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
SkepticalGuy,
“Moderate Republican” has posted well over 10% of the comments in this thread alone. His comments label everyone “wrong” that he disagrees with, which appears to be just about everyone with a skeptical view of CAGW. If you’ve noticed, there have been quite a few objections to his incessant angry rants on several different threads.
He is not engaging in the discussion of science so much as he is out to label others “deniers,” and when he disagrees with them, to flatly state that they are “wrong”. When corrected with facts, he ratchets up his name-calling and abuse.
Scientific disagreements are healthy. But constant angry rants, and refusing to try to understand the viewpoints of others are not. “Moderate Republican” comes across like Joe Romm, and who needs that?
I think you guys are being way too defensive here – let’s face it, he’s right on a number of the things he’s pointed out. Getting all worked up about just make you look defensive.
[Note: “SkepticalGuy” has the same IP address as “Moderate Republican”. ~dbs, mod.]
So MR has a friend over in the basement?
SkepticalGuy says:
June 15, 2011 at 7:55 pm
Hold on a second guys – sure it is annoying but what exactly has Moderate Republican done wrong?
——————————————————-
Well first off, Moderate Republican is neither, sort of like An Inconvenient Truth, which is also neither.
It’s not censorship, it’s just avoidance of thread pollution. If he had anything of value to say, I’m sure this site would welcome his comments. Many, many pro-AGW commenters can, and have overwhelmed threads here (Joel, Phil., RGates), but they can’t do it with total garbage (although some will disagree on the definition of total garbage).
I don’t think there’s any disagreement on the level of Progressive Fake Socialist’s garbage.
[Note: “SkepticalGuy” has the same IP address as “Moderate Republican”. ~dbs, mod.]
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Busted, you fraud !!!!
Tell us again how CO2 causes global warming. You’re a beacon of credibility now.
lowercasefred says:
June 15, 2011 at 4:51 pm
[Date: 10 May 2006]
“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
If you’d searched a little bit harder you’d have found this more recent article…
March 12, 2010: What in the world is the sun up to now?
In today’s issue of Science, NASA solar physicist David Hathaway reports that the top of the sun’s Great Conveyor Belt has been running at record-high speeds for the past five years.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/12mar_conveyorbelt/
Leif;
Slide 20 shows a TSI (proxy reconstruction), not counted sunspots.
Who was counting the sunspots in 650?
Who was measuring the temperature in 650?
I will gladly accept that a building foundation half buried under a glacier as a proxy indication that it was much warmer when the building was built, or multiple thick salt pans under the Mediterranean as a proxy indication that the Mediterranean has completely evaporated many times in the past; but have trouble accepting a clever formula that correlates a couple of values as a substitute for physical evidence or real measurements.
Theoretical investigation is important, and it is the theorist that often gets the Nobel Prize, but I place a much greater reliance on experimental investigation and practical demonstration; because it is real.
Please do not take my opinion as a slight to you in any way. What you do is important; it gives the experimentalists and technicians ideas, testable ideas.
PS. Slide 8 is a bit messed up.
[snip]
I see that Leif Svalgaard is still having trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time. Let me help him out.
[quote]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 at least as deep as the Dalton, but a much deeper Grand Minimum occurred 644-688, yet global temps were very warm.[end quote]
Clearly, It hasn’t occurred to Leif that the warming-cooling and then warming again that has taken place over the last 1000 years (i..e medieval warm period – Little Ice Age- Modern warming period) may be a millennial cycle that is not necessarily directly connected to the ~ 210 year deVriers solar cycle.
Hence, there is no reason why a short term cooling in the World’s temperature can occur (like those of the Oort, Wolf, Sporer, Maunder, Dalton and Victorian minima) irrespective of whether or not it is a generally warm (or cool) period.
Of course, it will be beyond Leif’s comprehension to envisage a mild cooling period centered on 1020 to 1050 AD
and so he will dismiss this possibility out-of-hand.
savethesharks said:
“There is no comparison: i.e between the CAGW conjecture…and the unproven (but highly more plausible) effects of solar variability (however minute)”
_____
Completely wrong. Both CO2 and Solar influences have been suggested as drivers behind climate change, in addition to many others. To discuss them and compare them is exactly what thinking people ought to do without being afraid of honest open dialog of the issues. I for one think the next few years and into the next decade will be the most exciting time to be studying earth’s climate and the comparison of the relative effects and strength’s of the 40% increase in CO2 over the last few hundred years versus the effects of a potential period of a quiet sun will certainly be the topic of many conversations. To suggest these kinds of comparisons is invalid is absurd.
The Oort minimum was weaker than the Dalton minimum according to the isotope record. It also occurred between two periods of higher solar activity. According to Wiki The Oort minimum causes a slight cooling during Medieval Warm Period. Prior to the Oort minimum there is a medium strength grand minimum from around 600-650 which coincides with more cooling. Having said that the temperature reconstructions vary greatly and its a matter of choosing the one that suits your agenda.
SG = MR = waste of my time, when the topic is solar.
both have a certain air of desperation about them that comes across quickly.
Andrew30 says:
June 15, 2011 at 8:37 pm
Who was counting the sunspots in 650?
Solar activity is reflected in the amount of cosmic rays reaching the Earth and causing deposition of radioactive Beryllium [10Be] and carbon [14C]. We can measure these isotopes in ice cores and tree rings and hence reconstruct solar activity about 10,000 years back.
Who was measuring the temperature in 650?
Craig Loehle describes how the temperature record was put together http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
One can always doubt the data [people do that when they don’t like what the data shows]. but you have to do that be examining the original papers and critique them individually.
PS. Slide 8 is a bit messed up.
It may look busy and messy, but it was constructed VERY carefully and may require a verbal explanation [which I gave at the talk].
Ninderthana says:
June 15, 2011 at 8:50 pm
the warming-cooling and then warming again that has taken place over the last 1000 years (i..e medieval warm period – Little Ice Age- Modern warming period) may be a millennial cycle that is not necessarily directly connected to the ~ 210 year deVriers solar cycle.
By the same token the Little Ice Age etc may just be manifestations of that same cycle and have nothing to do with solar activity [as you seem to agree with]. This is, in fact, precisely how I see it.
mild cooling period centered on 1020 to 1050 AD and so he will dismiss this possibility out-of-hand
The Grand Solar Minimum in 644-688 is the most flagrant disagreement. But I can live with all these disagreements because they are what one would expect if solar activity had nothing to do with it. If, on the other hand, one claims that the Sun is the major driver, then every disagreement requires an explanation. Where are your detailed explanations? Or are you a closet-believer in what I’m saying?
SkepticalGuy says:
June 15, 2011 at 8:13 pm
I think you guys are being way too defensive here – let’s face it, he’s right on a number of the things he’s pointed out. Getting all worked up about just make you look defensive.
[Note: “SkepticalGuy” has the same IP address as “Moderate Republican”. ~dbs, mod.]
——————————————————————————————————-
Of course, I kind of figured after the first post by this guy. Can you stop him ~dbs from hijacking the threads? I don’t mind if he has something constructive to say, but what he is saying has nothing to do with the topic at the top here. We are not discussing global warming in general and statistics, but what the sunspot cycle might entail or might not.
If he wants to have a slug-fest, there are plenty of other blogs for that. Can we just discuss the solar cycle and the implications thereof? Is that too much to ask?
[Reply: Moderate Republican and his sock puppet SkepticalGuy are in limbo for the time being, so you can enjoy this sunspot cycle thread. ~dbs, mod.]
Geoff Sharp says:
June 15, 2011 at 9:15 pm
The Oort minimum was weaker than the Dalton minimum according to the isotope record.
Your isotope records are obsolete and out-of-data. The latest 10Be and 14C records agree well over the past 2000 years as shown on slide 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
Study that slide carefully.
Leif;
RE: “One can always doubt the data [people do that when they don’t like what the data shows].”
The heading on your slide number 14 is:
“Historical Sunspot Number Records Probably Not Correct”
You make an assumption that the people that actually looked, counted and recorded the values, got it Wrong. And then you build on that.
How about trying this instead:
Historical Sunspot Number Records Are Probably Correct, What Is It That We Don’t Understand?
Of course, one can always doubt the data [people do that when they don’t like what the data shows].
If the historical temperature record does not fit the model, change the record.
If the historical sunspot record does not fit the model, change the record.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 15, 2011 at 9:52 pm
Study that slide carefully.
Once again it depends on what proxy record you select. Your arguments are far from convincing and expose your agenda.
Mods;
Andrew30 says: June 15, 2011 at 10:47 pm
Is a duplicte of
Andrew30 says: June 15, 2011 at 10:12 pm
Sorry I must have messed up with the comment interface (again).
Please delete it (Andrew30 says: June 15, 2011 at 10:47 pm), It make it look like I’m harping.
Thank You
Geoff Sharp says:
June 15, 2011 at 10:14 pm
Once again it depends on what proxy record you select.
I use the latest 10Be and 14C records [from independent researchers] and they happen to agree very nicely as shown on slide 20. So, perhaps, you can drop that excuse.
Andrew30 says:
June 15, 2011 at 10:47 pm
You make an assumption that the people that actually looked, counted and recorded the values, got it Wrong. And then you build on that.
We have very good reasons for this. Yes, they did get it wrong, because the record is pieced together from observations by many people using different telescopes and different counting methods.
This conclusion is the result of many years of analysis, starting with: http://www.leif.org/research/CAWSES%20-%20Sunspots.pdf then http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Spring%202007%20SH54B-02.pdf then http://www.leif.org/research/SSN%20Validation-Reconstruction%20%28Cliver%29.pdf then
http://www.leif.org/research/SH13A-1109-F2007.pdf then
http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Spring%202008%20SP23A-07.pdf then
http://www.leif.org/research/Napa%20Solar%20Cycle%2024.pdf then
http://www.leif.org/research/SPD-2009.pdf then
http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf then
http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-Seminar-14Sept.pdf then
http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-Seminar-12Jan.pdf and finally our talk at IUGG [which you’ll have in a few weeks]. Here is the first and last pages:
http://www.leif.org/research/IUGG-preview.pdf
As you can see there has been some evolution, but now we are close to the finish line and ready for formal publication. Note that Ken Schatten [creator of Group Sunspot Number is a coauthor and agrees with our adjustments]. We are having a workshop at Sunspot, NM, in September to get all this straightened out. All the producers of sunspots numbers [e.g. SIDC, NOAA] agree that correction is needed and are sending representatives. So expect something to come from the workshop.
But the data on slide 20 does not depend on our analysis of the sunspots. It is based of Loehle’s temperature reconstruction and measurements of 10Be and 14C in ice cores and tree rings. Nothing to do with sunspot counting being right or wrong. You should be able to understand that.
Apple, meet orange.
I wrote:
To which MR replied:
The right side, of course (our side).
To which MR replied:
It looks as though it’s MR who’s removed the context from the quote.
Non sequitur. An out of context quote is a debater’s trick. There’s no logical flaw involved.