“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
And I’ve also plotted the 1991 to 2009 from BGS/Svalgaard to compare against the NOAA SWPC data:
============================================================
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Boy, I thumped this issue hard during the early days of the Climategate scandal on this WUWT site.
I rode this subject like a, well here I should not say that word.
I posted may articles such as this one that gave me a heads up on the influence of our sun and what it was doing;
Solar Activity And Climate Change: New Sun-Watching Satellite To Monitor Sunlight Fluctuations
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090328163643.htm
I prayed the caretakers of the universe would give us an extended solar minimum to teach those who needed it what is ultimately in charge of the Earth’s climate. I have not been disappointed. I monitor the sunspot activity every day. Very quiet indeed.
If and when we transition into the next major glaciation, those of us with neanderthalish traits may have the advantage. Our short, stocky builds conserve heat well, and I for one am miserable when the temps get above 75f. As arable farmland and temperate fruit trees decrease in extent, tundra and inedible(to humans) boreal coniferous forest adjusts to lower latitudes, which means we would have to rely upon herbivores who are able to digest boreal plant matter. I seem to do well on a carnivorous diet, it’s sugar and refined starches that mess me up. Although I’ve heard that musk ox and yak steaks are quite gamey compared to USDA beef. Our large brains allow us to be resourceful and frugal in the challenging cold environment.
Khwarizmi says:
June 14, 2011 at 10:39 pm
For the past two years, sunspots – dark and intensely magnetic blotches on the sun’s surface – have been at their fewest since 1913.
1913? Wasn’t that just about the time early 20th century warming kicked in? Not the most convincing argument for a sun/climate link.
According to Prof Mike Lockwood of Southampton University, this view is too simplistic.
“We’d have seen it by now” — if only we would open our eyes.
No we haven’t. According to UAH, 2010 was as warm as the highly anomalous El Nino year of 1998. Temperatures during the recent La Nina (2008 & 2011) have been as high – if not higher – than during El Nino phases years in the 1980s.
Note the Oct 2005 dip in Anthony’s Solar Ap Progression chart above. Solar Activity is now at a level last seen in ~1900 – and has been for some time. Now imagine this: Let’s say all the world’s major governments had raised taxes to fund a project which would remove most of the excess CO2 from the atmosphere. This project was completed in 2005 and since then CO2 levels had been steady at ~295 ppm (1900 levels)
What would the reaction on this blog be if, 5 years later, we had the equal warmest year on record followed by the warmest La Nina year on record?
Lockwood’s right. Solar activity has been in decline since the early 1990s. There is no evidence of a decline in temperatures and a few articles documenting the odd cold event isn’t going to change that.
I forgot to add that thie most recent decade (2001-2010) was warmer than the 1990s by ~0.2 deg.
REPLY: Vuk, before you start another war of words with Dr. Svalgaard (that we all get really weary of), double check your work. Note the main data points in vertical aggregated columns and the average of those columns. You missed a step. – Anthony
Point taken, my post was obviously too aggressive and I do apologise.
I accept ‘L&P effect’ as an important discovery, however I think its importance may be a bit overblown.
I have reproduced Dr. Svalgaard’s distribution diagram
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/L&Pd.htm
and added SSN for each period in the same colours.
What I see is: as the SSN moves down slope, solar magnetic field does the same, and as the SSN is picking up in 2011, the magnetic field is moving up in intensity as well. This is indicated with colour arrows on the graph.
Just my personal observation.
vukcevic says:
June 15, 2011 at 2:22 am
Point taken, my post was obviously too aggressive and I do apologise.
Keep pushing Vuk, I also have great doubts on the validity of the so called L&P effect. This is a science blog where theories are put to the test, I am surprised Anthony is accepting this weak theory with a very poor data. What is required is an open forum where this can be thrashed out instead of blindly following the rhetoric, otherwise we fall into the same trap as those blogs that promote AGW.
John Finn says:
June 15, 2011 at 2:19 am
Lockwood’s right. Solar activity has been in decline since the early 1990s. There is no evidence of a decline in temperatures and a few articles documenting the odd cold event isn’t going to change that.
Judith Lean of NASA reacted to yesterday’s news thusly:
[This] “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,”
Now, doesn’t that mean Judith Lean of NASA believes the solar effect is about equal to the co2 effect in strength?
Wil says:
June 14, 2011 at 2:05 pm
So the warmists have laid down the guantlet so to speak. If there is substantial cooling over the next 20 years, then any reasonable person could conclude that there theory is disproven. They have claimed that the sun has neglible affect on the climate and CO2 is the main driver.
If the sun goes quiet but CO2 continues to rise:
1) Warmist theory, temperatures continue to rise, but a tiny bit slower.
2) Sun centered theory, temperatures fall.
Clear and defined predictions. Lets make sure we hold them to it.
maz2 says:
June 14, 2011 at 2:08 pm
If the Svensmark theory is correct, then it is the sun’s magnetic field that is important. The number of sun spots is a proxy for magnetic field strength. The sun’s magnetic field is weakening now. We could start seeing cooling in the next year or two, depending on what the thermal lag of the oceans turns out to be.
There has been a statistically significant warming trend over the last century,
——
Unfortunately, CO2 has been rising significantly only over the last 50 years. Once again, the data does not support the theory that CO2 is a major climate driver.
@tallbloke:
She is comparing to the effect, which is caused by the change in CO2 from 2000 to 2008. So yes, she apparently believes, that the effect of a missing solar maximum would equal to the effect of the differential CO2 over a time period of less than 10 years.
Correction to my last comment: Replace CO2 with greenhouse gases.
I doubt that there will be many deaths, even if we fall back into another little ice age. The reason for this is the world is a vastly different place than it was back then. At the start of the little ice age, the vast majority of the world’s population was one bad harvest away from starvation, even in the best of times.
Today we are awash in food, even to the point that we can afford to pay farmers not to farm. Last year, 30% of the US’s corn crop was used to make fuel for cars. Land that becomes to cold to grow food crops, can still be used to raise cattle. I suspect that when food prices start going up, resistance to GM crops will start to melt away. That will enable us to grow more food on fewer acres. I also suspect that the organic movement will fizzle out as well, also increasing crop yields. In the US northeast, there are large areas that used to grow crops, but were allowed to go fallow because they could not compete with the large farms of the midwest. Those areas could be opened up again. Backyard gardens (victory gardens) could become the norm again.
We have plenty of spare capacity built into the system. No need to panic.
It has been my experience that when systems being studied start doing unexplained things, it is a great opportunity to study and learn.
The sun is doing things right now that it has not done since the advent of modern astronomy. These things are making a hash of many established theories of how the sun works. I have a feeling that we will learn more about the sun works in the next decade or two, than was learned at any time previous.
Now, doesn’t that mean Judith Lean of NASA believes the solar effect is about equal to the co2 effect in strength?
It would seem to imply that she believes the solar effect is roughly equal to a decade’s worth of CO2 increases (~20 ppm). Presumably, if she thought that it was of equal stength she would expect temperatures to drop by whatever amount CO2 was responsible for.
It looks as though the solar max ->solar min estimate of a 0.1 deg drop in temperature is about right
This is also a great opportunity to observe the silence at the major news services, other than Fox News. It may turn out to be a rare glimpse into how information was muffled during the Dark Ages and during the Soviet era. Any information that does not fit the official bias is to be ignored or silenced.
@Mark Wilson:
Really? Is this a fact?
Show me your data, with which you back up your assertion. I show you mine (well, not really “mine”):
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.gif
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/siple-gr.gif
The background CO2 mixing ratio started to rise above pre-industrial values about 1800-1850.
Don Horne says:
June 14, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Who is John Galt?
Being the “troll” I am . . . . Who was John Galt? Many think Ayn Rand was telling the story of Nikola Tesla!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla
Geoff Sharp says:
June 14, 2011 at 11:12 pm
This has not been picked up in L&P’s research because of bad science and methodology in relation to their record keeping.
These are serious and unfounded accusations directed towards one of the most eminent solar observers in the world. Shame on you.
Haha, man, your post with graphs looks more succinct than my thesis report.
vukcevic says:
June 15, 2011 at 2:22 am
What I see is: as the SSN moves down slope, solar magnetic field does the same, and as the SSN is picking up in 2011, the magnetic field is moving up in intensity as well.
A proper analysis would compare years with same sunspot numbers, like in this table:
SSN Median Average Year
_2.9 2217 2191 2008
_3.1 2046 2040 2009
15.2 2180 2215 2006
16.5 2026 2074 2010
29.9 2810 2817 1994
29.8 2199 2230 2005
40.4 2277 2291 2004
40.5 1988 2033 2011
111 2516 2539 2001
104 2447 2482 2002
In every case the later year has lower magnetic field for same sunspot number.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 15, 2011 at 8:05 am
Geoff Sharp says:
June 14, 2011 at 11:12 pm
This has not been picked up in L&P’s research because of bad science and methodology in relation to their record keeping.
These are serious and unfounded accusations directed towards one of the most eminent solar observers in the world. Shame on you.
No shame, the L&P research is flawed and should not have passed the peer review process. I challenge Anthony to review the results in a separate story on WUWT where it can be debated.
jan,
So the fact that significant warming occurred long before there were significant increases in CO2 doesn’t bother you in the slightests.
If those extremely tiny increases in CO2 from 1890 to 1950 was capable of increasing temperatures that much, then the CO2 increases since 1950 should have been enough to warm the earth by 4 or 5 degrees, at least, not the trivial 0.3 or so that has been measured (and poorly measured at that).
If you can’t explain the fact that more than half of the warming you claim CO2 causes occurs prior to 90% of the CO2 entering the atmosphere, then you don’t have a theory.
Leif Svalgaard says: June 15, 2011 at 8:33 am
……..
It would have been helpful if there were individual years marked on your original distribution graph
http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston-Penn-Distribution.png
so we could observe distribution transition from one year to the next.
It shouldn’t be necessary to add that temperatures have been increasing, more or less steadily, since the end of the LIA. Are we to believe that whatever caused this warming petered out conveniently at 1950 and CO2 took over?