"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
Jim D
June 14, 2011 6:52 pm

The Lean et al. (1995) forcing from the Maunder Minimum was estimated to be -0.5 W/m2 (this is now regarded too high if anything), while that from doubling CO2 is +3.7 W/m2. Which one will one in the next few decades? You can figure it out.

Jim D
June 14, 2011 6:56 pm

It should say … Which one will win…

Frank K.
June 14, 2011 7:00 pm

steven mosher says:
June 14, 2011 at 5:32 pm
“funny how skepticism about models and predictions all fly out the window”
Not for me…if the sunspot number suddenly spikes, the modelers will be backtracking as usual (cf. David Hathaway).
Climate models, numerical methods, and predictions are much easier to criticize, however…(cf. NASA GISS)

Warren in Minnesota
June 14, 2011 7:02 pm

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…”This is highly unusual and unexpected,” Dr. Frank Hill, associate director of the NSO’s Solar Synoptic Network, said of the results.
I have been expecting this for some time now. But I looked at historical data.

Alcheson
June 14, 2011 7:09 pm

Poor peeps in the Midwest… Tornado seasons over the next few years could be really bad if the earth starts cooling fairly rapidly while the gulf still warm.

anticlimactic
June 14, 2011 7:13 pm

This news has not hit the BBC yet, I wonder if it will? Top story in Science is Phil Jones now saying warming since 1995 ‘..is now significant’ !
I wonder how the MSM will treat this story – at least it shouldn’t be going via the ‘Environmental Correspondent’ so might scrape through, possibly without the reference to global cooling!

dp
June 14, 2011 7:25 pm

Who will be the first prominent Global Cooling Denier?

Brent Hargreaves
June 14, 2011 7:26 pm

Al Gored: I was just singing that song from The Wizard of Oz – something about a big bad witch being brown-bread) and came upon your witty piece about pitchforks and witchhunting.
Yes, the warmists must be held accountable for the damage they have done. Wicked watermelons always had an antidevelopment agenda. They must not be allowed to slink quietly away. D’you reckon Al Gore will go in front of the cameras, all contrite, and weep like a disgraced Japanese businessman?

Chris R.
June 14, 2011 7:27 pm

To Jim D.:
Check your circuits, sir, you’re getting wrong answers. That 3.7 W/m2 is not just from CO2, it’s from all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., methane, CFCs, etc.). And that is not a direct number, but includes much assumed feedback from water vapor–which could very well not be happening. All of which renders your point somewhat moot. Further, Judy Lean’s reconstructions may be wrong as well–even the IPCC admits that the level of our scientific understanding of solar effects is “LOW”.

James Sexton
June 14, 2011 7:33 pm

Jim D says:
June 14, 2011 at 6:52 pm
The Lean et al. (1995) forcing from the Maunder Minimum was estimated to be -0.5 W/m2 (this is now regarded too high if anything), while that from doubling CO2 is +3.7 W/m2. Which one will one in the next few decades? You can figure it out.
=======================================================================
lol, would that be from the group that believes the sun has very little to do with our climate?……yeh I thought so.
How in the world would anyone believe that someone could estimate what the forcing was of the MM to tenths of a W/m2 when the event was mostly before thermometers?…….. sigh, nvm,
You know, faith is a good thing when properly applied……. I don’t think this is a case where it is being properly applied…….
Yeh, I measured the Sun’s output 300 years ago……. it measured in miliwatts………sigh.

June 14, 2011 7:34 pm

Jim D says:
June 14, 2011 at 6:52 pm
The Lean et al. (1995) forcing from the Maunder Minimum was estimated to be -0.5 W/m2 (this is now regarded too high if anything), while that from doubling CO2 is +3.7 W/m2.
—————————————————————————–
Uh oh, can I smell a SCA …….. a “sunspot cycle adjustment” showing up in the temperature record ??

Mike
June 14, 2011 7:41 pm

A study in the March 2010 issue of Geophysical Research Letters explored what effect an extended solar minimum might have, and found no more than a 0.3 Celsius dip by 2100 compared to normal solar fluctuations.
“A new Maunder-type solar activity minimum cannot offset the global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions,” wrote authors Georg Feulner and Stefan Rahmstorf, noting that forecasts by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have found a range of 3.7 Celsius to 4.5 Celsius rise by this century’s end compared to the latter half of the 20th century.
“Moreover, any offset of global warming due to a grand minimum of solar activity would be merely a temporary effect, since the distinct solar minima during the last millennium typically lasted for only several decades or a century at most.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110614/ts_afp/usspacesun

John Silver
June 14, 2011 7:43 pm

Just another scarewagon to jump on.

June 14, 2011 7:44 pm

The SC24/25 grand minimum prediction is now being observed by regular science. But they have no clue as to why or even how long it will last. The Landscheidt Minimum will not be anything like the Maunder Minimum and should recover during SC26. The most interesting data to follow will be the solar pole field strength which has the very real prospect of showing a failure of the Hale cycle if the southern hemisphere fails to reverse.
For those interested in learning about a solid theory explaining how our Sun is controlled can read my paper published at the Cornell Uni website HERE.

Les Francis
June 14, 2011 7:46 pm

Don says: June 14, 2011 at 6:43 pm
Well it isn’t on Drudge as of 9.30 pm so it can’t be in the MSM.

You haven’t been looking hard enough
The article is under the picture of the Australian P.M.

JDN
June 14, 2011 7:50 pm

I, for one, welcome our new glacial overlords! 🙂
Also, couldn’t the jet stream being monitored by the NASA group just have moved a little deeper, too deep to see…. and cycle 25 will be pretty normal? I’m not sure how you rule that out.

geo
June 14, 2011 7:56 pm

This is terrible.
Clearly we must immediately transfer trillions of dollars to developing countries to help them cope with the horrors to come from this Solar Cooling.

Jeremy
June 14, 2011 7:57 pm

Now would be an appropriate time to read “The Chilling Stars” by Nigel Calder.

Don
June 14, 2011 8:06 pm

Just made Instapundit 10.43 ….an Instalanche…

KenB
June 14, 2011 8:15 pm

Brent Hargreaves says:
June 14, 2011 at 7:26 pm
Al Gored: I was just singing that song from The Wizard of Oz – something about a big bad witch being brown-bread) and came upon your witty piece about pitchforks and witchhunting…………….
Brent I had similar thoughts, and Julia Gillard is not doing so well in the polls in Australia with her carbon dioxide tax she won’t put to the voters before forcing it upon us – shades of witch burning in the air!!.?? Then as I see the changing roles and places of those who are now the new sceptics I am reminded of that kindergarten song and dance – doing the Hokey Pokey, you know put your right foot in and shake it all about…. ……. then turn around, that’s what its all about!!
Science, Science…now what can I say!!

Jim D
June 14, 2011 8:16 pm

Replying to various people, the 3.7 W/m2 was for doubling CO2 from pre-industrial, which may happen within 50 years. So far we have had nearly 2 W/m2, also larger than the Lean estimated 0.5 for the Maunder Minimum. The downward revision of Lean’s number was from astronomical studies of sun-like stars that just don’t have much variability, but I’d tend towards Lean’s number, if I had a say. This is about 2.5 times a solar 11-year cycle variation which sounds reasonable, and even more recent work is revising it up again towards Lean’s number. Where do people get the idea that the IPCC discounts the sun when they were using solar forcing variations in addition to volcanoes, CO2, etc. The warming from 1910-40 relies on it for a significant fraction of the effect.

DonS
June 14, 2011 8:22 pm

Station announcement at Las Cruces: Ladies and gentlemen, those of you who arrived on the AGW Gravy Train, now standing at platform one, will be required to seek new transportation to your next destination. Spaces are still available in the Maunder Minimum Special, now boarding at platform two. We regret that your tickets are not transferable, AGW grants can not be accepted for passage and no models can be accommodated. Only scientists with actual data in hand may board. Correction, only actual scientists with actual data in hand may board.

R. Gates
June 14, 2011 8:35 pm

Theo Goodwin says:
June 14, 2011 at 5:55 pm
R. Gates,
Don’t you think it is strange that the topic of this forum is the AAS announcement about solar activity and you talk endlessly about sea ice?
—–
As the long-term decline in arctic sea ice is what IS happening in the region of the planet that is supposed to be on the front lines of global warming, when all the AGW skeptics are getting all frothy about a new pending Little Ice Age, I think it wise to keep them grounded in what actually is happening.
REPLY: Mr. Gates, since you mention “grounding” let me help you understand what that really means.. It’s my job (and moderators) to manage this forum and where it goes, not yours. Stay on topic or comment on another thread, but don’t clutter up this one with off-topic pronouncements because you think you’ve been assigned a job here.
– Anthony

Brent Hargreaves
June 14, 2011 8:37 pm

I’m writing to several BBC shows suggesting that they run this story big style. Mostly a nest of warmist vipers, the BBC influences public opinion to such an extent that governments think, “Well, this global warming thing is just codswallop, but there are votes to be won from having green credentials.”
It’s infuriating that the public’s support for a green agenda has been hijacked by the wicked myth of Global Warming. How much better might these vast amounts of cash be spent? We squander billions on useless windmills, driving up energy prices to the detriment of manufacturing industry. And at the same time we barely scratch the surface of genuine problems such as habitat loss and endangered species.
Let’s hope that the NASA announcements signals the end of the Global Warming Religion and a return to sanity.

Steve Oregon
June 14, 2011 8:39 pm

2012 is approaching and everything going on is just a coincidence.
I’d like to be joking around but I’m instead forced to at least ponder.