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/
PS: Gavin was defending Jones & Mann by implying that even if they weren’t nice, that didn’t mean they were wrong, any more than newton’s non-niceness meant he was wrong. There’s nothing absurd about that. Therefore DCA’s quoting it, along with the lead-in sentence from wiki that gave context, wasn’t an out-of-context misrepresentation.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 16, 2011 at 12:45 am
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.
The big unresolved issue for me is the calibration of TSI and the interpretation of 10Be data and 14C data. But rather than argue with you about it, I’ll wait for ongoing TSI measurements during the impending middling-to-grand solar mimimum. I very much hope all concerned can trust the keepers of the record not to cook the books on TSI, because there are some eminent scientists who don’t have much faith in the person producing the figures, and believe he is agenda driven.
Regarding TSI calibration, we have only a short record from the space age, and even within that there are gaps, problems with hardware degradation, calibration and on orbit performance. The current platform (TIM/SORCE) shows a 4W/m^2 lower reading than expected when deployed, and this apparent aberration goes unexplained as far as I know. http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_3month_2400x1800.png
It only takes a tiny error to be magnified many times in the extrapolation of short trends to long time series to change the picture radically. This being so, The error bars on the graph in the middle panel of slide 20 are hopelessly optimistic IMO.
[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.]
Thanks for that, it’s good to see this thread getting back on track.
From the Loehle paper cited and used above (page 18 of 20 in the pdf):
“The main significance of the results here is not the details of every wiggle, which
are probably not reliable, but the overall picture of the 2000 year pattern showing the
MWP and LIA timing and curve shapes. Future studies need to acquire more and
better data to refine this picture.”
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
Re: Martin June 15, 8:35
I stand corrected (and embarrased).
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 16, 2011 at 12:45 am
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.
You obviously did not look at my link showing the comparison between Solanki C14 and Steinhilber 10Be. If so you would have seen the large variations for the Oort and Dalton periods. I also notice you promote Loehle temp reconstruction as it suits your needs. Cherry picking proxy records is a poor mans science exercise that you seem to revel in. As I said before…pick a proxy record that suits your agenda.
“The ice that counts” in the antarctic is the surface ice, not the sea ice, because that’s the ice that would raise the sea level if it melted. apart from the Antarctic peninsula, Antarctica is always way below freezing, so there’s no melting going on there, nor will there be if the temperature goes up a few degrees. This is why tom said “never.”
lowercasefred says:
June 16, 2011 at 5:45 am
Re: Martin June 15, 8:35
I stand corrected (and embarrased).
No need to be embarrassed, the conveyor belt is measured in two distinct areas. When the top layer is fast the bottom layer is slow which can lead to a whole world of confusion.
If Moderate Republican truly is Gavin and not some 17 year old with a physics book, shame on you Sir.
Being an effective Troll is nothing to be proud of. Creating fake email accounts and posting with fake names (even worse ironic ones that lie about your character) is juvenile and completely unprofessional. Take a moment and read what you have posted here and know much of it is self serving masturbation.
What remains to be discovered is the influence normally perturbing the Solar dynamo as the Sun regularly transits the system’s gravitational center of moment, which event seldom occurs during Grand Minima, the sole characteristic common to minima identified to date.
May I again suggest the Lorentz force. As this force is implicated as the source of jets arising in the billion solar mass centers of Seyfert galaxies perpendicular to the galactic plane why not look for it as the culprit producing magnetic knots in our local gravitational well of one solar mass?
tallbloke says:
June 16, 2011 at 5:20 am
I very much hope all concerned can trust the keepers of the record not to cook the books on TSI, because there are some eminent scientists who don’t have much faith in the person producing the figures, and believe he is agenda driven.
This is just crap. Nobody is cooking the books. And who is ‘that person’? TSI is measured by several independent groups and is watched closely [e.g. by me]: http://www.leif.org/research/PMOD%20TSI-SOHO%20keyhole%20effect-degradation%20over%20time.pdf
The current platform (TIM/SORCE) shows a 4W/m^2 lower reading than expected when deployed, and this apparent aberration goes unexplained as far as I know.
All spacecrafts have undetermined offsets because the absolute level is hard to measure. TIM/SORCE just does it better than the rest. And I don’t know where you got this ‘lower than expected’ from. In any case, the cause has been identified and explained: “Scattered light is a primary cause of the higher irradiance values measured by the earlier generation of solar radiometers in which the precision aperture defining the measured solar beam is located behind a larger, view‐limiting aperture. In the TIM, the opposite order of these apertures precludes this spurious signal by limiting the light entering the instrument.”
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2010GL045777.pdf
Geoff Sharp says:
June 16, 2011 at 5:58 am
You obviously did not look at my link showing the comparison between Solanki C14 and Steinhilber 10Be.
Because Solanki’s 14C is not primary data. Check the comparison in the lower panel of slide 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
I also notice you promote Loehle temp reconstruction as it suits your needs
Which other temperature reconstruction should one pick? Any suggestions? Mann’s hockey stick?
As long as people continue to address “Moderate Republican” on this thread, he should be allowed to rebut. Rebuttal must always be permitted, otherwise a RC site we become.
Moderate Republican – shame on you for playing with IP addresses and identities. These are typical troll tactics, and are a good reason to ban a commenter. I respect your intellect, and would like to read more, without the troll throwing feces. Honest discussion is what everyone wants. GK
Many posters here seem to think that IF this projection from computer modeling is correct and the solar output does fall to ‘Maunder minimum’ levels there will be actual cooling rather than just a reduction in the rate of warming.
This belief seems unwarranted by the magnitude of the energy change from a solar slowdown compared to the extra energy from rising CO2.
Perhaps one of the posters that believes there will be cooling would dare to predict when statisticallu significant cooling will be detectable. The Earth has warmed by a statistically significant amount since 1995. Will it take another 15 years to cool back down to mid-90s figures, or given the much smaller size of the energy change will it take much longer?
R. Gates said
Completely wrong. Both CO2 and Solar influences have been suggested as drivers behind climate change, in addition to many others.
The problem I have is that any time I’ve brought up solar influences (while discussing GW), I’m told that it’s miniscule compared to the CO2 forcings. My contention is that the NATURAL cycles are more powerful than anything WE can do. I also maintain that CO2 is not a primary causation of warming – but that’s a different discussion.
It will be interesting to see what happens over the next couple decades, should the expected solar minimum come to pass.
G. Karst says @ur momisugly June 16, 2011 at 8:31 am
That was actually my brother responding on my laptop – hence the same IP – which he did mention on his second response but that comment was blocked. BUT – that said – the point you make is a fair one and is acknowledged.
If I had not been blocked I wouldn’t have explained it to my brother who then in turn wouldn’t of responded – but still – he should have identified himself.
That all said I would like to participate here, and am certainly open to ground rules if they are established. Simply questioning assertions on science that appear to be invalid would seem to make me a troll.
Dear Moderate Republican,
“That all said I would like to participate here, and am certainly open to ground rules if they are established.”
I think perhaps you have not seen the policy page of WUWT (even though notes have been left to tell you to look at it you haven’t seen those- one of the downsides of Crackberry blogging).
So go here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/policy/
We have another commenter, similar to yourself, who started out this way and almost got banned, but now is a regular. We welcome debate, but know this; broad statements, blanket missives etc about the people who frequent here won’t get you anywhere and will be strongly challeneged. You’ve used the d-word four times now, and have been snipped. That puts you on probationary status. BTW like you, I once believed that AGW was the only possible cause, even going so far as to being an activist in the early 1990’s inspired by James Hansen. Now I see the bigger picture. It is one of many. Perhaps if you open your mind to the possibility that our government funded science is not infallible, you might see the broader picture that I do. – Anthony
As predicted nearly all MSM has covered this story (even the economist). Lets see when BBC takes it on. Expect a dramatic decline in interest on the subject of AGW this year and next to the point of no return. BTW SST are still declining see AMSU despite La Nina ending
“this projection from computer modeling is correct and the solar output does fall to ‘Maunder minimum’ levels”
By the ‘computer modeling’ is meant characterizing the significant physical processes, setting initial conditions and running to conclusion without regard for experiential results updating iterative calculations.
” the magnitude of the energy change from a solar slowdown compared to the extra energy from rising CO2″
From whence do you suppose the “energy from rising CO2” to come, exactly?
Please do not waste our time.
izen June 16, 2011 at 8:58 am:
Yes! That is the important question! It applies to both warming trends and cooling trends. So far, none of climatology’s projections on either condition have been accurate (skillful) or of much practical use.
Probably because they are made by a bunch of naked men, under a full moon, around a burning fire, casting bones, muttering “booga booga”. It is the curse of post-normal science. GK
If Leif Svaalgard (used to be a luke proponent of AGW and doubtful of ANY solar influence on climate, constantly being hammered here by other “solar experts”), is prepared to go out on a limb on this one, you can be assured that he is probably correct and the data is now acceptable enough for him and co-authors to come to the conclusion that the sun is fading for some time.
WE should be thank full L Svaalgard is taking time to answer all these barrage of questions in any case
Fair enough Anthony – and per your request I have not used the d-word since you asked me not to.
I will read and respect the forum policy. I go where the proven science takes us – and as someone with little kids at home no one wants this to be a non-issue more than I do.
May I simply ask that other abide by the same rules and do not attack me merely for engaging on the science? That would seem to be a fair request, no?
For the record – I am not Galvin nor do I receive any direct compensation from the climate science field of scientific inquiry. My broader profession – which is out of scope for this conversation as should be all of yours – may benefit from scientific research on either side but this is not a part of my compensation.
@- gary gulrud says:
June 16, 2011 at 9:32 am
“From whence do you suppose the “energy from rising CO2″ to come, exactly?
Please do not waste our time.”
I expect it to come from the same place as the extra energy that has caused the significant warming since 1995. Long wave photons from the surface converted to thermal energy of the atmosphere.
Being confronted with ideas that conflict with your own may be uncomfortable, but it is rarely a waste of time. (Its one reason I am here-grin-)
I would like to say first thanks to Anthony and the rest of the team for cleaning up this thread. I was attempting to filter through what was being said and had a huge difficulty due to the hijacking that occurred…that being said:
Some thoughts on Leif’s work:
I really think its worth reading if no one has done so yet. Its rather well-thought out, not alarming and seems to agree with emperical evidence that we all know is probably true. Lets not dismiss it out of hand simply because we want the solar effects to be what drives the climate. I want to make this clear: We do not really realize what drives the climate. CO2 influences are minor to *(not seen since I really believe we still can not differentiate those effects from noise at this point in time.)
Let me be clear, without a doubt, I think everything contributes to our climate slightly, the question we must answer at some point is “what is the actual impact of every climate trigger.” I know most of us here are used to people with agendas and we tend to be rather critical of science in general. This is healthy at a certain stage, but we can go over-board. I don’t think anyone has yet, and I think its good to keep Leif on his toes, but remember to not cross the line.
Solar impacts will be seen regardless in the next 20 years. Whether its a small factor or major, we will know for sure with the TSI measurements. I think this is a good thing that can only advance what we know about the solar forcings on climate.
I stated earlier for instance that the worst case scenario is a 2C drop from where we are today. This is not supported by Leif’s work except in the most indirect sense.
I am going to post this link again:
http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
I read through this and Leif is not making any claims that are not supported by the data. Its all speculation (I think slide 20 is indeed very important). We might be able to cool 2C Given the following:
1) Mara minimum versus Dalton or Oort. – I think the jury is still out what the minimum is going to be. Either caliber is possible at this point, so lets not jump to conclusions on this front quite yet.
2) Other climate factors that we do not understand. This is key, if other things soak up cooling (think of negative feedbacks) we might not cool at all. The data shown in slide 20 especially shows us that we might cool due to the sun, but the amount is not clear. Is it just .7C roughly? More or less? We don’t know.
But we do know that its possible that we could cool, and I think the major thing we tend to overlook which is a similar thing to what AGW believers or alarmists tend to get wrong is cloud cover and its large impact. I think this once again is the wild-card and we should be looking in this direction more for what the actual impacts of a solar minimum will be.
The data at the very least points us towards the fact that there might be a correlation between solar impacts and temp, but it also shows us that there are probably other factors that over-ride this. Lets not jump to conclusions without good data. And remember, clouds are still a wild-card for all intensive purposes. The research into cosmic rays and their relationship has helped us out a ton, but we are still not over the bridge as far as this goes yet.
In any regard, a quiet sun will be studied in detail for the next few decades, and we should put this issue to rest I hope. Only with good sceptical science (not the terrible site mind you) and a mind to the actual data will we solve the huge complex system of climate.
Lastly, a question for Leif…
What do you think this solar minimum entails for us? (I am asking in terms of temp. change…and I realize its nothing more then an educated guess, but I am curious what your thoughts are.)
I tend to think that this plus other factors will cause us to cool down by 0.6C roughly assuming MARA level min. or prob closer to 0.3C for dalton level over 50 years and (possibly) double that for 100+ years. Granted, this also is depended on other scenarios..so feel free to put caveats and everything else. Its a very difficult question I understand..
Laura says:
June 16, 2011 at 9:36 am
If Leif Svalgaard (used to be a luke proponent of AGW and doubtful of ANY solar influence on climate
Not quite my position. I believe that both AGW and the Sun have influence, but that they are small and not major drivers of the climate. I once put it this way: Effect = X * Sun + Y * Man + Z * (other natural causes). The issue is what X, Y, and Z are. AGW assumes Y is the biggest factor. Solar enthusiasts assumes X is the biggest factor. I believe Z is the biggest factor. You can categorize the beliefs this way (X,Y,Z), so AGW would be (x,Y,z), where capital letters [X] mean large influence and small letters [x] mean small influence. Solar would be (X,y,z) and I would be (x,y,Z). People that push (X,0,0) or (0,Y,0) or (0,0,Z) or (0,0,0) are not very reasonable.
BenfromMO says:
June 16, 2011 at 10:28 am
What do you think this solar minimum entails for us? (I am asking in terms of temp. change…and I realize its nothing more then an educated guess, but I am curious what your thoughts are.)
I would guess down 0.1C or less, due to the Sun. I could live with twice that, but have a hard time with anything more, for the reasons laid out in my talk [BTW given to an audience which was a mixture of rabid AGW and solar enthusiasts].