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/
“Long wave photons from the surface converted to thermal energy of the atmosphere.”
Even immoderate Indies accept that GHGs, notably H2O, can retard cooling of the Atmosphere, but as the emissivity of dirt and green plants are each 1000 times that of this low-pressure gas the Atmosphere cannot heat the earth exept when warmer than the earth’s surface and only then by conduction given the foregoing.
Note that 40% of the Sun’s incoming radiation is IR and of that but 1%, a tiny fraction of the whole reaches the surface. If you want to argue that the captured outgoing energy can overwhelm the incoming energy it behooves you to demonstrate a positive feedback loop between the Atmosphere and the surface, the heat capacity of which is 3 orders of magnitude greater.
Good luck with that.
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 which Gavin would know. You also made several comments on the Phil Jones thread yesterday defending Jones as Gavin did in the Wiki quote I gave yesterday. The thread was posted several days ago and few on this thread probably haven’t read.
You claim not to be Gavin but you do a good impersonation.
Here is the last comment you made: (which has been deleted)
Moderate Republican says:
June 15, 2011 at 5:54 pm
James Sexton says @ur momisugly June 15, 2011 at 5:15 pm “1000 peer reviewed skeptical papers are also valid”
Please list the 1000 peer reviewed papers from mainstream and reputable sources that have withstood further review by the scientific community. Christy, Spencer, Lindzen all fail that test BTW.
Are you asserting Christy, Spencer and Lindzen all of who have all published papers should be withdrawn? You claim that many assertions are being made without citations but you continue to do just that.
Zzzzzz…
You need many more letters than there are in the Latin alphabet, Leif, to begin to describe all the factors that are resulting the Earth’s climate.
Hi Leif,
I’m curious, IF there is any indiriect influence from the Sun (anything, like variable volcanic activity or clouds, correlating with solar variations), do you consider it Sun or other natural causes?
What other natural causes can you think of? Earth’s orbital variations? Unforced variations? …
I believe X is the biggest factor, at least on decadal/centurial time-scales. I would categorize my belief as: (0.7, 0.1, 0.2). I estimated y = 0.1 not because of CO2, but because of any other possible anthropogenic effect (can not be completely dismissed).
Alexander Feht says:
June 16, 2011 at 11:02 am
Zzzzzz…
As usual, you bring nothing to the table.
Edim says:
June 16, 2011 at 11:16 am
What other natural causes can you think of? Earth’s orbital variations? Unforced variations? …
Orbital variations, but they should really be excluded on the time scale we are concerned with. On longer time scales they are way the biggest factor. Ocean circulation also comes to mind. Volcanic eruptions are high on anybody’s list.
Question. If a 0.2C decrease in temperature–or even a degree–is not a big deal to the alarmists, why does a temperature increase of the same 0.2C signify the end of the world as we know it?
DCA says @ur momisugly June 16, 2011 at 10:56 am “Are you asserting Christy, Spencer and Lindzen all of who have all published papers should be withdrawn? ”
Of course not – they should be as with all the sources reviewed and challenged for veracity. (btw – your post is close to a strawman argument).
I may be wrong, but I believe that Lindzen major focus has been on water vapor and there are substantial doubts as to the validity of his theory on warming being offset by cooling-type clouds. (commonly referred to as Iris hypothesis)
“This Iris hypothesis has not been dismissed by the scientific community. It was rigorously examined by many scientists: at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, at the University of Washington; they said well okay, does this hypothesis fit the available data?
The bottom line is, no. It is not a convincing explanation of the available data that we have. And that’s how science should work, not by assertion, or eminence of position, but by testing theories and facts.”
Dr. Benjamin D. Santer
Climate research
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
I believe the above to be a transcription of the following conversation;
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/features/moving-by-degrees/live-video-event.html
There are other studies of this available that reached the same conclusion I just don’t have the references handy.
James Sexton says @ur momisugly June 15, 2011 at 5:15 pm;
I looked at this link which I believe you provided;
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
and it appears to fall a good number short of near 1000 papers. In fact it appears to fall short of 500 papers. Further it appears that some of the entries would be considered a stretch to have academic relevance to the topic or require peer view of actual climate scientists. A sampling of these is below that likely benefit from further investigation;
Chemical Engineering Progress. Volume 105, Number 6, pp. 20-25, June 2009
Proceedings of the ICE – Civil Engineering
Chemical Innovation
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Energy Sources
Regulation
Energy,
Energy,
Energy Policy,
Economic Affairs,
Energy & Environment,
Economic Analysis and Policy
Economic Analysis and Policy
Futures
Area (Geographical society)
Hi Kay – good question!
Kay says @ur momisugly June 16, 2011 at 11:32 am “Question. If a 0.2C decrease in temperature–or even a degree–is not a big deal to the alarmists, why does a temperature increase of the same 0.2C signify the end of the world as we know it”
1) climate scientist is saying that “.2C is the end of the world as we know it”. That is kinda of a strawman, but in any case is the risk on much larger rises that that over time which is the concern
2) the solar forcing cycle, as references above is relatively short term, whereas forcing from CO2 and other GHG can last a long time.
“Following cessation of emissions, removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide decreases radiative forcing, but is largely compensated by slower loss of heat to the ocean, so that atmospheric temperatures do not drop significantly for at least 1,000 years. ”
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.abstract
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 16, 2011 at 10:41 am
” 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].”
O.1c is just the estimated change within one full cycle, during first half it increases 0.1c and the second half decreases 0.1c. (of course) When a body is equally warmed and cooled the same duration of time the overall result is no change. If the cycle is left in the cooling half with no warming half over many decades this must change unless the equilibrium has already been met in just the first half cycle. What evidence is there that this reaches equilibrium with the direct affect on climate?
In this case above I could see a possibilty of 0.1-0.2c decline (at most) per cycle until reaches equilibrium. How this indirectly affects the ocean and cloud albedo in Z, would likely amplify it. There has only been two changes in climate over the past decade that we know about, has any posiblity in counteracting warming from CO2 gases. (little decline in solar activity and cloud albedo) Already these between them have stopped the warming at least for the time being.
The important (to me) point to determine is who can show the means (mechanisms) by which the MM was the cause of the LIA? Or who can show the means by which there was significant cooling due to any significantly lower than normal solar activity in history?
The potential for the sun going into a MM solar behavior now would be very scientifically interesting and we may gain important scientific results from studying it, but I see a lack of credible basis for ‘cooling concernism’.
John
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 16, 2011 at 10:33 am
“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.”
____
It actually sounds like we have a great deal in common in terms of our perspective, however, I would say that the certainty of knowing at any given time of x,y, or z being a given size is low…that is, I thnk that x,y, and z and change over time, and may also in fact affect each other. Such that, at a given time volcanism (which would be in class z) might be quite low, and perhaps Milankovitch cycles might also be in a fairly neutral position, and would also be in class z, and so, the net influence of z might overall be quite low, but during this time you could have a very active or inactive sun in just the right measure, either TSI, solar wind etc. so that during that time period class x is larger. Class y, the human influence could also change over time, depending on human activity. On the extreme end, should we be so foolish as to have a all-out thermonuclear war, you certainly can see how class y could become the largest of the three. The question of course, is truly how much does the 40% increase in CO2 beyond the range we’ve seen the past 800,000 years truly affect the overall strength of variable y.
Our place in space should be seen as a chaotic thing, much as climate and weather are. Impossible to model in anything beyond immediate Newtonian terms.
So . .
X=next to nothing
Y=bugger all
Z=Everything we don’t even know we don’t know.
Big leaps towards the “Unifying thing” are a waste of time. You eat an elephant a slice at a time.
That Fount Of Knowledge from Auntie Beeb, the esteemed Richard Black, has given us his considered opinion.
“Firstly, the research itself has been presented at one rather small and rather select science meeting – not, as yet, formally published and peer reviewed.
Soundings taken by dot.earth’s Andy Revkin suggest that not everyone in the solar physics community likes what they’ve seen – so publication could yet prove a hurdle.
Secondly, the predictions made about the next solar cycle would have to turn into reality – which might not happen, however sound the science.
Thirdly, even if all that happens, the Sun’s activity would have to diminish enough to overwhelm the man-made contribution to the greenhouse effect.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13792479
“The answer, Sir, is in the plural. And they bounce.”
(W.S.Churchill)
@- gary gulrud says:
June 16, 2011 at 10:51 am
“….. as the emissivity of dirt and green plants are each 1000 times that of this low-pressure gas the Atmosphere cannot heat the earth exept when warmer than the earth’s surface and only then by conduction given the foregoing.”
It warms the surface by slowing the rate of energy loss.
Bit like wearing a coat.
“Note that 40% of the Sun’s incoming radiation is IR and of that but 1%, a tiny fraction of the whole reaches the surface.”
You are using a rather wide definition of IR to get that result. Care to put some wavelengths on those assertions? For instance, what percentage of 16um IR reaches the surface compared to 18um?
Would you agree that at 15um the energy in the incoming solar radition is around 2000 times LESS than the emitted energy from the surface at 15um.
” If you want to argue that the captured outgoing energy can overwhelm the incoming energy it behooves you to demonstrate a positive feedback loop between the Atmosphere and the surface, the heat capacity of which is 3 orders of magnitude greater.
Good luck with that.”
No problem!
For over 90% of the incoming solar energy the atmosphere is irrelevent, there is no significant interaction.
However the energy emitted from the surface with its lower intensity and different spectrum is several order of magnitude greater at wavelengths that DO interact with components of the atmosphere than sunlight. The atmosphere is a significant factor in the surface cooling mechanism. Its not a case of ‘overwhelming’ the incoming energy, it is a case of having a significant influence on the rate of cooling by interacting with the outgoing, surface emitted IR.
Thats why the Earth is around 33degC warmer than the moon and unless you ascribe to the Gerlick/Miskolczi baloney is the basis for the ‘Greenhouse effect’.
Matt G says:
June 16, 2011 at 11:58 am
O.1c is just the estimated change within one full cycle
Provided it is a normal cycle. If the cycle shrinks to nothing, the change will be down 0.1C, so that would be the largest change I can think of.
R. Gates says:
June 16, 2011 at 12:06 pm
I would say that the certainty of knowing at any given time of x,y, or z being a given size is low…that is, I think that x,y, and z and change over time, and may also in fact affect each other.
since climate is on long time scales, the random changes of X, Y, and Z might wash out. Anyway, we can’t really deal with a moving target too much: imagine we were to assign different values to X, Y, and Z every day..
From Moderate Republican on June 16, 2011 at 10:01 am:
That makes twice now you’ve said you’re not Galvin when the particular actual name is Gavin, no “L” in it. Technically you have yet to assert that you are not Gavin, as in Gavin Schmidt.
You have added the qualification that you are not directly compensated by “…the climate science field of scientific inquiry.” Politicians may not be directy compensated by lobbyists and special interests, but their significant influence on the actions of the politicians through assorted forms of indirect compensation is often noted and troubling. “Not directly compensated” opens up the possibility of a large host of conflicts, such as public support of dire (C)AGW predictions while invested in carbon sequestering schemes, or inciting global warming fears while selling solar panels as a method of reducing personal carbon emissions.
Please consider modifying your statements to avoid undue suspicion.
G. Karst,
It’s been estimated that it takes about 15 years of data to see a trend. There’s been no significant trend since about 1995. There’s been a slight negative trend from most years after 1999 (1997?). Depending on how strong a trend is, it might only take 5 or so years after the start for it to be “significant”.
When one might expect a downward trend to start beats me.
Of course nobody knows if the TSI during a grand minimum is equivalent to TSI at the bottom of normal cycle, or if it is lower.
“For over 90% of the incoming solar energy the atmosphere is irrelevent, there is no significant interaction.”
On the contrary, I would assert that even the visible region is heavily refracted. Most of the UV, 20% of the incident energy, reaches the ground unmodified.
Cutting to the chase, back-radiation plays no part because the earth cools faster than the Atmosphere can heat the surface.
gary gulrud says:
June 16, 2011 at 1:13 pm
Most of the UV, 20% of the incident energy, reaches the ground unmodified.
No, most of UV is absorbed high in the atmosphere. http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Heating-UV.png
Mark Wilson says:
June 16, 2011 at 1:03 pm
Of course nobody knows if the TSI during a grand minimum is equivalent to TSI at the bottom of normal cycle, or if it is lower.
If we assume that the L&P effect is that magnetic field does not concentrate into dark visible spots, variations of TSI which is normally composed of a darkening due to spots plus emission from the surrounding magnetic field areas [twice as much as the darkening] might miss the darkening effect [when there are no spots], so TSI during a Grand Minimum might be higher than TSI now.
“No, most of UV is absorbed high in the atmosphere.”
I stand corrected. So the overwhelming majority of the incident photons are re-emitted by the atmosphere on their way, if at all, to the surface.
June 16, 2011 at 12:47 pm said “that makes twice now you’ve said you’re not Galvin when the particular actual name is Gavin, no “L” in it. Technically you have yet to assert that you are not Gavin, as in Gavin Schmidt.
Good point! Good think this forum isn’t about spelling. If I was Gavin you’d think I’d be able to spell my name properly (although I’m sure there are folks here that would dispute that).
I am neither Gavin Schmidt or Galvin Schmidt, although my great grandmother was a Schmall which also starts with “S”.
My best guess is that less than .05% of employers total revenue is related to supporting technologies that are used in climate modeling, so while small it seemed reasonable to be clear that there was the possibility that revenue was there.
Anyone else care to make a similar financial disclosure?
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,
You’ve dodged question twice now.
Since you claim the quote is “out of context”, you’re claiming you know the context of Gavin’s wiki quote who sure as hell knows.
What is the context you claim to know or are you making another “logical fallacy”?
IMO you may not be Gavin or Galvin ect. but you sure sound like a member the hockey team.
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,
You’ve dodged the question twice now.
Since you claim the quote is “out of context”, you’re claiming you know the context of Gavin’s wiki quote who sure as hell knows.
What is the context you claim to know or are you making another “logical fallacy”?
IMO you may not be Gavin or Galvin ect. but you sure sound like a member the hockey team.