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/
BBC total silence boycott
So now we know! Low sunspot levels = cooling and visa versa. The problem is that, compared with a little warming, a little cooling could be a serious matter for us all.
I’ll still be thinking that China and India have the right idea concerning energy. And that you really don’t.
____
Don’t recall me ever expressing my ideas concerning energy, but perhaps you are a mind reader.
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=AS06018.pdf
Please read our paper above to see what we predicted in 2005 [but couldn’t get published until 2008] . If our work is correct, all solar-type stars showing cyclical solar activity will have have multiple Jovian-like planets in near-circular orbits with periods ~ 3 – 15 years. It is the (collective synodic) periods of these orbits that set the stellar magnetic activity cycles.
The real pioneers in this field are Paul Jose, Theodore Landscheidt, W. Fairbridge, J. Shirley, Carl Smith, Geoff Sharp, Tallbloke, Vukcevic, Timo Niroma, David Archibald and others who have dared to think differently.
Another L.I.A. in the offing? Maybe. Anybody want to buy a wind farm?
Thank goodness that, due to economics, there are zillions of tons of unexploited coal in Africa. That should keep my great grandchildren warm.
Time for a new word………………”Coolistas” !!!!!
I will agree with Mosh to a degree. For the last three years, to my eyes, the solar scientists as a group have generally born an unsettling resemblance to the Three Stooges in making predictions to watch them be shot down. This fact should be considered when assigning credibility to their newest effort here. I’m not generally a fan of “appeals to authority” in the first place, but to the degree I will give credence on that basis, your “authority” better be gleaming of late with right-on predictions proved true –and the solar boys and girls, of late– have not so gleamed.
Having said that, it also appears to be much more falsifiable than AGW modelling, and most of the predictions the solar boys have made have been able to be tested in months, or a few years, rather than, oh, “safely after I’m retired”. And for all their flailing around, that is far to be preferred (if sometimes gruesome to observe) than the AGW modelling crowd.
huishi says:
June 15, 2011 at 3:12 am
Could someone point me to a link that seeks to prove the relationship between sunspots and climate
The link between sunspots and climate is based on correlation without causation. There are a number of hypothesis but none have been proven.
steven mosher says:
June 14, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Nobody has rejected the idea of computer models completely. What we have rejected are climate models because of their complete failure to accurately predict anything. When the solar models fail as badly as climate models have, we will start rejecting them as well.
Let’s cut to the quick, earlier comments stated that the study of Astrophysics is in it’s infancy. I would argue that Man’s understanding of much of the world and the universe around him is also in it’s infancy. There is not a field of study where we have defined the whole of what there is to be understood. Not even close. To imply that we understand Climate and what will happen to Climate over the next 100 years based solely on rising CO2 levels is arrogant given the level of knowledge on the subject and the questionable data that gets massaged to try and understand it. Likewise, to say we know what the sun will be doing over the next 10-50 years is equally a reach. Other than counting sunspots we dont have longstanding records of the type we are just now developing regarding the processes of the sun. To say we have “understanding” of the sun from a 10-30 year snippet out of a 5 billion year time frame is ludicrous.
I know people feel more comfortable having someone of authority provide them some certainty in their lives, but we fail ourselves and our species when we “make believe” that we have all the answers.
Both this site and Bishophill state that the press release has been issued to the MSM.
Pity none of them are using it then.
Nearest we get is the lunar eclipse and the CME here in the UK.
For ANY of them here to admit to this report having any weight is to admit that
‘CAGW was BS all along and we supported it and lied to you’
Careers for many politico ‘scientists’ and ‘journalists’ and massive financial and job losses worldwide
could hang on this; so the establishment will circle the wagons but there
is a chance that this is CAGW’s last stand.
There are just too many downward indicators to ignore and although the cooling denial continues
outwardly I’m sure that behind closed doors an escape plan is being devised.
Also, couldn’t the jet stream being monitored by the NASA group just have moved a little deeper, too deep to see….
—
The jet stream was detected using sound waves. (Similar to how the interior of the earth was mapped using the sound waves from earthquakes.) These sound waves have been used to map the interior of the sun, all the way to it’s core. It is not possible for the jet stream to sink so low that it couldn’t be seen.
The best test of a theory is its ability to make predictions of future events. Over 20 years ago Landscheidt predicted a mini ice age around 2030. It is time to reconsider Landscheidt’s theories of conservation of angular momentum in the integrated Solar System and its effects on solar activity. The Sun should not be viewed as an isolated entity. Until the underlying physics is thoroughly understood, we will be unable to make accurate predictions regarding solar activity.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/172
R. Farr
The warming capacity available in anthropogenic CO2 can be mathematically calculated, all other things being equal. The warming capacity of available energy emanating from the Sun (in all its forms) can be mathematically calculated, all other things being equal. Guess which part of the statement is creating all kinds of stomach upset on both sides of the fence? As in “It’s a travesty that there has not been significant [fill in with your word] in the past 10 years. Apparently, Earth, and its oceans and atmosphere don’t give a rat’s hind end about “all other things being equal”.
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.
aaron says:
June 15, 2011 at 4:52 am
OTOH, volcanism that accompanies the minima, mostly on the backend, has yet to take off. Note the coincidental spike in AP on 3/11/11. As the Sun reawakens the relaxed Lithosphere is going to see more rift activity as we’ve seen in recent weeks in Chile and Eritrea. SO2 outgassing will cool as surely as reduced TSI.
Ric Werme says:
June 15, 2011 at 5:55 am
Jack Eddy has contributed a lot to solar physics, does deserve such an honor, and a lot of us want it named the Eddy Minimum.
Jack Eddy did much to promote the better study of the Sun in general, and the Grand Minima, the Maunder in particular. But he didn’t forecast this one. Despite being persona non grata here, I think Landscheidt should get the honours for this paper:
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm
When I predicted three decades of global cooliing in 2000 based on geologic data of recurring climatic cycles (ice core isotopes, glacial advances and retreats, and sun spot minima), I presented a temperature graph showing several possible historic analongs the 1945-1977 global cooling, the 1880-1915 cooling, the Dalton Minimum (1790-1820 cooling, and the 1650-1700 Maunder Minimum, and suggested that it was too early to tell which one we were most likely too experience. The graph and supporting data are available in several GSA papers, my website, and in a paper scheduled to be publishd in Sept. If we are indeed headed toward a disappearance of sunspots for decades, as in the Maunder during the Little Ice Age, then my most dire prediction may come to pass. As I have said many times over the past 10 years, time will tell whether my prediction is correct or not. The announcement that sun spots may disappear totally for several decades is very disturbing because it could mean that we are headed for another Little Ice Age during a time when world population is predicted to increase by 50% with sharply increasing demands for energy, food production, and other human needs. Hardest hit will be poor countries who already have low food production, but everyone would feel the effect of such cooling. The time to prepare is now–later may be too late.
The clock is ticking. Time will tell!
And the spin begins: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110614/ts_afp/usspacesun
They won’t give up this meme. Not ever.
The mainstream media is in fact already covering the story, and although there will be a lag with BBC, The Guardian etc, I predict even they will cover it in the next few days. While it is hard to know at this stage what the ultimate impact will be, the admission that the possibility of an extend quiet period could have a cooling effect is an important development in the public debate over the science.
What is also important is that the distinction has been made between, on the one hand, the impact of the normal variation within a solar cycle and between solar cycles (ie, some grander than others), and, on the other hand, the impact of the absence (or near absence) of any solar cycle altogether. This means that folks (including IPCC authors) that said the normal variation has an insignificant impact on climate are open to the idea that an extraordinary event like a Maunder Minimum could have a significant impact. In other word, there is a way out here for climate alarmists without them loosing face.
Gavin Schmidt has already been quoted as saying that the reason that so little is known about solar effects on climate is that the sun’s highs and lows have been within such a narrow range in recent history, however “if we were to see a return to what’s called Maunder Minimum conditions in the next 50 years or so, that would be interesting.” Schmidt again: “I think we’d learn a lot about solar physics and solar variability. … It’s going to be scientifically very exciting if all this pans out.” In other words: there’s more to learn, and so the question remains open. (See: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/14/6857473-solar-forecast-hints-at-a-big-chill )
And then there is the Solar Physicist who was the main authority for the current IPCC report, Judith Lean:
“Recent solar 11-year cycles are associated empirically with changes in global surface temperature of 0.1 Celsius,” said Judith Lean, a solar physicist with the US Naval Research Laboratory. This she says “cancelled part of the greenhouse gas warming of the period 2000-2008, causing the net global surface temperature to remain approximately flat — and leading to the big debate of why the Earth hadn’t (been) warming in the past decade.” If Lean answers the question of why no warming so far this century by giving it to the negative effect of a quiet solar cycle, then she leaves herself wide open to the possibility of a much greater impact on warming by no solar cycle at all.
See AFP: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gCyKV3JBekkM64KzB2y5sBT9cmFQ?docId=CNG.0859eaa6a7b504a1beff9276b550af2a.371 On Judith Lean and the IPCC see: http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think4/post/judithgate_ipcc_consensus_was_only_one_solar_physicist
The same AFP article goes on to quote a GRL paper giving the effect an extended solar minimum at around a 0.3 Celsius dip by 2100 compared to normal solar fluctuations. The authors are quoted as saying that “A new Maunder-type solar activity minimum cannot offset the global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions.” But what it is required to offset is given as the maximum 4.5 degree C rise given by the IPCC . Whereas, if we look to the IPCC estimated minimum rise, then 0.3 C does look like a significant offset.
The author’s of the GRL article are again quoted: “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.” Hummm, ‘several decades or a centruy’ is getting into ‘grandchildren’ territory, and so i am not so sure that policy makers and the voting/taxpaying public would view this as exactly ‘short term.’ There’s still lots of spinning going on, but we can only wait an see how much traction can be achieved with this new development in the public debate over the science of AGW.
I forget to mention I. Charvátová
[reply] and P.A. Semi TB-mod
OT: Is there any reason why my posts spend over an hour awaiting moderation while the comments of others seem to continue being posted?
[reply] Moderation work can be patchy at this time of day. bear with us. TB-mod
And when this global cooling doesn’t happen, will you conveniently forget that you ever made this prediction?
Mark Wilson says at June 15, 2011 at 6:39 am
“Nobody has rejected the idea of computer models completely. What we have rejected are climate models because of their complete failure to accurately predict anything.”
That is a deceptive statement unsupported by valid evidence and historically false. A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.
Models have predicted the warming we are seeing, the CO2 concentration levels, the interplay between CO2 and other GHG, impact on ocean temperatures and ocean acidification.
Moderate Republican says:
June 15, 2011 at 5:56 am
Overall, solar minimums and maximums are thought to produce no more than 0.1°C (0.18°F) of cooling or warming.
Thought by whom? And why? Nothing to do with little things like funding, careers, egos?
“Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and among the founders from the RealClimate blog, stated the results of photo voltaic activity on climate in the last 3 decades happen to be “in the margin of what we should can identify”
Calling the sun’s effect on climate “photo voltaic” is nonsense. Photo voltaic is the conversion of light to electricity. Nowhere is electricity a measure of climate. Clearly physics is not Gavin’s subject.
RC is trying to confuse the issue and marginalize the solar influence on climate by using the term “photo voltaic” in place of “solar”. Since there is no “voltaic” measure of climate they can quite rightly claim there is no “photo voltaic” influence on climate.
Thus, by substituting the term “photo voltaic” for “solar”, RC is attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of the scientific community to perpetuate their own belief system.
This is no different than the continuing disingenuous terminology we have seen from “Climate Science”. Global warming, climate change, climate disruption. When the facts don’t support your position, change the terminology.
If you see the term “photo voltaic” used in place of “solar” you are seeing a disinformation campaign in action. You are seeing the corruption of language in science as a means of obscuring the lines between fact and fiction.