BREAKING – major AAS solar announcement: Sun's Fading Spots Signal Big Drop in Solar Activity

“If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades,” Hill said. “That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate.”

Update: see the official press release here – “All three of these lines of research to point to the familiar sunspot cycle shutting down for a while.”

It looks like Livingston and Penn are getting some long deserved recognition. See their graph below:

Graph above from the WUWT solar reference page. Note: when the B gauss reading of sunspots hits 1500, they will no longer have enough contrast to be visible. That may occur at or near the years 2015-2017. WUWT carried a story in 2008 warning of this.

The American Astronomical Society meeting in Los Cruces, NM has just made a major announcement on the state of the sun. Sunspots may be on the way out and an extended solar minimum may be on the horizon.

From Space.com reporting from the conference:

Some unusual solar readings, including fading sunspots and weakening magnetic activity near the poles, could be indications that our sun is preparing to be less active in the coming years.

The results of three separate studies seem to show that even as the current sunspot cycle swells toward the solar maximum, the sun could be heading into a more-dormant period, with activity during the next 11-year sunspot cycle greatly reduced or even eliminated.

The results of the new studies were announced today (June 14) 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.

Currently, the sun is in the midst of the period designated as Cycle 24 and is ramping up toward the cycle’s period of maximum activity. However, the recent findings indicate that the activity in the next 11-year solar cycle, Cycle 25, could be greatly reduced. In fact, some scientists are questioning whether this drop in activity could lead to a second Maunder Minimum, which was a 70-year period from 1645 to 1715 when the sun showed virtually no sunspots.

“We expected to see the start of the zonal flow for Cycle 25 by now, but we see no sign of it,” Hill said. “This indicates that the start of Cycle 25 may be delayed to 2021 or 2022, or may not happen at all.”

If the models prove accurate and the trends continue, the implications could be far-reaching.

“If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades,” Hill said. “That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate.”

More on this as it unfolds. This article will be updated as new information becomes available.

See also these previous WUWT posts leading up to this:

Solar activity still driving in the slow lane

Sun’s magnetics remain in a funk: sunspots may be on their way out

The sun is still in a slump – still not conforming to NOAA “consensus” forecasts

Livingston and Penn in EOS: Are Sunspots Different During This Solar Minimum?

Livingston and Penn paper: “Sunspots may vanish by 2015″.

Sunspots Today: A Cheshire Cat – New Essay from Livingston and Penn

=======================================================================

As I have been saying for some time:

The long term Ap (the solar geomagnetic index) has been on a downtrend, ever since there was a step change in October 2005.

Thanks to Leif Svalgaard, we have a more extensive and “official” Ap dataset (NOAA’s SWPC shown above has some small issues) that I’ve plotted below. The step change in October 2005 is still visible and the value of 3.9 that occurred in April of 2009 is the lowest for the entire dataset. The Ap Index was the lowest in 75 years then.

Click for a larger image

Click for a larger image

And I’ve also plotted the 1991 to 2009 from BGS/Svalgaard to compare against the NOAA SWPC data:

Click for a larger image
Click for a larger image

============================================================

Dr. Leif Svalgaard writes:

Here are the abstracts of the three studies referred to in the announcement:

P16.10

Large-scale Zonal Flows During the Solar Minimum — Where Is Cycle 25?13

Frank Hill, R. Howe, R. Komm, J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, T. P. Larson, J. Schou, M. J. Thompson

The so-called torsional oscillation is a pattern of migrating zonal flow bands that move from midlatitudes towards the equator and poles as the magnetic cycle progresses. Helioseismology allows us to probe these flows below the solar surface. The prolonged solar minimum following Cycle 23 was accompanied by a delay of 1.5 to 2 years in the migration of bands of faster rotation towards the equator. During the rising phase of Cycle 24, while the lower-level bands match those seen in the rising phase of Cycle 23, the rotation rate at middle and higher latitudes remains slower than it was at the corresponding phase in earlier cycles, perhaps reflecting the weakness of the polar fields. In addition, there is no evidence of the poleward flow associated with Cycle 25. We will present the latest results based on nearly sixteen years of global helioseismic observations from GONG and MDI, with recent results from HMI, and discuss the implications for the development of Cycle 25.

P17.21

A Decade of Diminishing Sunspot Vigor

W. C. Livingston, M. Penn, L. Svalgaard

s Convention Center

Sunspots are small dark areas on the solar disk where internal magnetism, 1500 to 3500 Gauss, has been

buoyed to the surface. (Spot life times are the order of one day to a couple of weeks or more. They are thought to be dark because convection inhibits the outward transport of energy there). Their “vigor” can be described by spot area, spot brightness intensity, and magnetic field. From 2001 to 2011 we have measured field strength and brightness at the darkest position in umbrae of 1750 spots using the Zeeman splitting of the Fe 1564.8 nm line. Only one observation per spot per day is carried out during our monthly telescope time of 3-4 days average. Over this interval the temporal mean magnetic field has declined about 500 Gauss and mean spot intensity has risen about 20%. We do not understand the physical mechanism behind these changes or the effect, if any, it will have on the Earth environment.

P18.04

Whither goes Cycle 24? A View from the Fe XIV Corona

Richard C. Altrock

Solar Cycle 24 had a historically prolonged and weak start. Observations of the Fe XIV corona from the Sacramento Peak site of the National Solar Observatory showed an abnormal pattern of emission compared to observations of Cycles 21, 22, and 23 from the same instrument. The previous three cycles had a strong, rapid “Rush to the Poles” in Fe XIV. Cycle 24 displays a delayed, weak, intermittent, and slow “Rush” that is mainly apparent in the northern hemisphere. If this Rush persists at its current rate, evidence from previous cycles indicates that solar maximum will occur in approximately early 2013. At lower latitudes, solar maximum previously occurred when the greatest number of Fe XIV emission regions* first reached approximately 20° latitude. Currently, the value of this parameter at 20° is approximately 0.15. Previous behavior of this parameter indicates that solar maximum should occur in approximately two years, or 2013. Thus, both techniques yield an expected time of solar maximum in early 2013.

*annual average number of Fe XIV emission features per day greater than 0.19

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
270 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
jorgekafkazar
June 14, 2011 12:05 pm

Theo Goodwin says: “It may be good science. I am not questioning that. However, it does provide excellent cover for the Warmista to withdraw from their ridiculous positions. I bet they do, pronto.”
I bet they don’t. Their greed, misanthropy, and hubris will continue unabated. Why should they not? They control the government, the MSM, the jourinals, and education. Facts are irrelevant to them.

jorgekafkazar
June 14, 2011 12:10 pm

Jan Perlwitz says: “Like the Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee have decided by vote that there was no global warming?”
The actual data show that global temperatures have flatlined. Your simile is nonsensical

Jan Perlwitz
June 14, 2011 12:16 pm

Funny, how many AGW deniers who reject any evidence from climate science which supports that there was global warming due to increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or projections how the climate system may change due to a continuing increase in greenhouse gases, embrace some statements and predictions about sun activity with excitement as soon as it seems to be in agreement with their preconceived views. Suddenly uncertainty isn’t an urgent question anymore, or the understanding of the dynamics of the physical system in question, sun models not flawed and insufficient, or speaking about the accusation of fraud and conspiracy (I don’t say there was any).
Solar activity hasn’t increased for 30 years. Nevertheless, the last decade has been the warmest decade since 1880. What makes the AGW deniers think a decrease in solar activity, which would counteract the effect of greenhouse gases too some degree, would have a stronger cooling effect than the warming effect of greenhouse gases, if the concentration of latter in the atmosphere continues to increase? Global mean temperature during the Maunder Minimum was about 1 K below present day. So, even if the sun went into a state like during the Maunder Minimum, it wouldn’t subtract much from the likely temperature increase due to increasing greenhouse gases.

ferd berple
June 14, 2011 12:21 pm

vukcevic says:
June 14, 2011 at 11:02 am
But what is the cause? Don’t expect an answer from the regular science.
We are very lucky that the IPCC and mainstream climate science has ruled out the sun as a major driver of climate. No matter what happens with the sun we can be confident temperatures will continue to rise in step with CO2, once we are past hansen’s pinotubo dead cat bounce.
by Dr. Theodor Landscheidt
Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity
Klammerfelsweg 5, 93449 Waldmuenchen, Germany
Abstract: Analysis of the sun’s varying activity in the last two millennia indicates that contrary to the IPCC’s speculation about man-made global warming as high as 5.8° C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected. It is shown that minima in the 80 to 90-year Gleissberg cycle of solar activity, coinciding with periods of cool climate on Earth, are consistently linked to an 83-year cycle in the change of the rotary force driving the sun’s oscillatory motion about the centre of mass of the solar system
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm

Murray
June 14, 2011 12:23 pm

R. Gates – it may not tell us anything about CO2. Given the timing this should be a deep grand minimum, like the Maunder. However, the Maunder occurred very near the bottom of the ca 1000 year cycle, but this DGM bottom will be about 70% of the way to the peak of the ca 1000 year cycle, so should not be as cold as the Maunder w or w/o CO2. My prediction – coldest near 2035, colder than the Dalton, but not as cold as the Maunder. See my Nov 16 and Jan 23 posts at http://www.agwnot.blogspot.com/ . Murray

son of mulder
June 14, 2011 12:25 pm

Giant space mirrors just beyond earth’s solar orbit. Paint roofs and roads black, crank up the carbon black, remove sulphate aerosols from the atmosphere………change school curricula to include ice studies instead of science…..what’s happening on Mars? Set up new website called Realsun, rename IPCC as Ice Patrol Cold Coordination………. so much to do, so little time.

June 14, 2011 12:26 pm

There is no need to be too concerned about climate on the account of the ‘L&P effect’, it is the North Atlantic which will give the lead. At the moment there is nothing there suggesting excessive cooling, it is by far too early to talk about anything below what was experienced in the 1960s/70s, and even that may take few years to reach.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.htm

Jan Perlwitz
June 14, 2011 12:27 pm

:

The actual data show that global temperatures have flatlined. Your simile is nonsensical

Scientifically nonsensical is the conclusion that there was no global warming, just because no statistically significant trend can be detected on a short time-scale of a few years.

SSam
June 14, 2011 12:27 pm

From the Space.com article:
“The latitude of this jet stream matches the new sunspot formation in each cycle, and models successfully predicted the late onset of the current Cycle 24.”
Uh, “successfully predicted the late onset”? Did NASA not have this model?

Martin Brumby
June 14, 2011 12:30 pm

says: June 14, 2011 at 12:05 pm
@Theo Goodwin says:
Can’t believe you didn’t realise that Solar Minima are (like floods / droughts / warming / cooling / hurricanes / lack of wind / etc. etc.) sure-fire proof of the evils of CO2 emissions and why we need to throw the economy under a bus NOW.
Even R. Gates is getting twitchy.
Worse than we thought.
But zombie science will rise to the challenge! Send more grant money.

Joe Ryan
June 14, 2011 12:31 pm

Any anthropogenic relief from the coming cold would be greatly appreciated.

R. Gates
June 14, 2011 12:32 pm

Murry,
A reasonable prediction perhaps, but I’m still skeptical about those who give absolutely no weight to the 40% more CO2 we have now than during the Maunder. I am not a CAGW person, but I do think that the increased CO2 has some effect. To discount it completely seems a bit…one-sided…

Coach Springer
June 14, 2011 12:32 pm

Yet again, the science does not appear all that settled.
Please allow me to make a sarcastic, but more predictable prediction based on my career as a regulator: If science can’t produce more consistent and reliable predicitions than all these climate predictions, we are just going to have to regulate science . For the good of science and the government regulation that science exists to support.
Taking our cue from the EPA and its “environmnmental justice,” let’s call it “scientific justice.” Science designed to combat the ills of unclear and indecisive facts and skepticism undermining beneficial government action on behalf of society. Heck, even call it the Scientific Protection Agency and ask the public to submit writings on what scientific justice means to them.
I’m guessing the planet will warm, cool or both. But I know that people’s fears and craving for control will cause government to corrupt science absolutely.

Mycroft
June 14, 2011 12:35 pm

When i read this the first thought that poppoed in to my head..”ding dong the witch is dead, the wicked witch is dead”song from the Wizard of Oz.
Second thought was
S**T as a species we’re F****D if this comes off we are in serious doo do
Third thought. it’s only another prediction,based on yet another model!? one alarmism replaces another.
Guess we will have to wait and see where the climate go’s in the next few years…….lets hope it not another round of get your check book out goverment we need more research grants.If so this science malarkey will begin to wear a little thin on folks around the world.

Wil
June 14, 2011 12:36 pm

As other wrote here anyone following this site should not be surprised at this announcement – nor do I feel any satisfaction our side is perhaps correct. The consequences of a cooler sun is almost to devastating to contemplate in its entirety. Especially for a planet fully trained in warmest propaganda expecting the exact opposite. Not to mention governments to this very moment fully geared up or gearing up for instituting warming policies world wide. IF time proves science even somewhat correct all of us live on a planet completely unprepared for this abrupt change in thinking and acting is indeed problematic on a planetary scale. The question is will society understand the ramifications what was announced today and will governments? We’re living near a knife-edge with food production as we write mostly due to terrible weather in North American growing regions, Australia, and many other parts of this planet. OR will our combined societies merely write this announcement off as technical jargon of no interest of the public at large?

Jason Bair
June 14, 2011 12:38 pm

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/14/6857473-solar-forecast-hints-at-a-big-chill
Looks like msnbc is leaning on cooler times as well. Shoot, its their headline for the article. There’s some spin, but not as much as I’d think.
Nail in GW coffin.

Ollie
June 14, 2011 12:40 pm

I was at the EGU meeting in Vienna 2 year ago, and there were people predicting this then (not my field, I must add, but I was an interested observer). It’s good to see the research is continuing and being publishing and acknowledged.

Theo Goodwin
June 14, 2011 12:40 pm

R. Gates says:
June 14, 2011 at 11:20 am
“On the other hand, IF the said new Maunder Mininum does in fact take place as predicted, it will provide a wonderful chance to compare the climate of the new period with the previous quiet sun period. We’ve now got 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere than we had back then. If it makes no difference (i.e. Europe get’s just as cold now as it did then) then we can pretty much throw away any caring about CO2 levels.”
This assumes that we have a temperature measurement system that all people of good faith can trust and it assumes that we have a reasonable account of UHI, among other things. At this time, we have neither and the people with the bucks, Warmista, have no plans to address these problems to the satisfaction of critics.

Kev-in-Uk
June 14, 2011 12:41 pm

it’s ok – the sun isn’t responsible for the warming – we are! – at least that was the warmist stance as I understood it! (and they are RIGHT – ‘cos they have a concensus! LOL)
/sarc

June 14, 2011 12:43 pm

It is time for someone or something very prominent to sound the alarm to the entire world:
A LITTLE ICE AGE has already begun.
The whole world must stand in awe, closely follow how bad the winters will get and prepare. Add heaters and insulation to houses because of the major cold, snow, ice, frozen pipes, etc. The recent brutal Northern Hemisphere winters will only get worse.
Ironic that the image of the sun looked blank just before this announcement which is occurring during what many are calling the solar MAXIMUM of solar cycle 24.

Ollie
June 14, 2011 12:43 pm

Addendum:
The predictions presented at the EGU were based on analysis of various solar activity patterns and trends, and currently there appears to be a confluence of several cycles of various lenths, all combining to create was was described as a “Grand Minimum”, similar to the Maunder Minimum.

June 14, 2011 12:48 pm

We still need to know HOW solar variability affects the Earth’s energy budget.
I think this is the most likely proposal at present but we need more data to verify or rebut:
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/features-2/wilde-weather/the-sun-could-control-earths-temperature/290.html

Theo Goodwin
June 14, 2011 12:50 pm

Anything is possible says:
June 14, 2011 at 10:54 am
“This a temporary reprieve. It buys us time. It is now imperative that the world seize this unexpected opportunity to reduce CO2 emissions to safe levels to avoid the catastrophic warming that will inevitably occur when Solar activity returns to normal.”
OK, OK, you guys might be right. I accept your point. It may be that science has no role to play in the fate of the Warmista propaganda campaign. However, if we are going to get steadily cooler because of something like a Maunder Minimum, then surely some ordinary people are going to label the Warmista as CO2-sky-god obsessed and conclude that they are not practicing serious science (because their obsession prevents them from taking seriously science of the sun, among other things).

Richard Sharpe
June 14, 2011 1:02 pm
Mike Abbott
June 14, 2011 1:03 pm

Jim Cripwell says:
June 14, 2011 at 11:47 am
Let us not forget that the L&P paper was originally rejected for publication; why I never found out, but it is suspected that it was because it went against the warmahoilic religion.

At the time, Livingston seemed to accept the rejection in stride. In an article published by the May 19, 2008 Arizona Daily Star, he commented on the rejection:
<The paper, rejected in peer review, was never published by Science. Livingston said he's OK with the rejection. "I accept what the reviewers said," Livingston said. "'If you are going to make such statement, you had better have strong evidence.' " Livingston said their projections were based on observations of a trend in decreasingly powerful sunspots but reviewers felt it was merely a statistical argument.
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=120FACCA07ABB308&p_docnum=1&p_theme=gannett&s_site=azstarnet&p_product=ADSB