Irregular heartbeat of the Sun driven by double dynamo

[DocM]

Oops....

http://www.phys.org/news/2015-07-irregular-heartbeat-sun-driven-dynamo.html

Irregular heartbeat of the Sun driven by double dynamo

A new model of the Sun's solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun's 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone. Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the 'mini ice age' that began in 1645. Results will be presented today by Prof Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno.

It is 172 years since a scientist first spotted that the Sun's activity varies over a cycle lasting around 10 to 12 years. But every cycle is a little different and none of the models of causes to date have fully explained fluctuations. Many solar physicists have put the cause of the solar cycle down to a dynamo caused by convecting fluid deep within the Sun. Now, Zharkova and her colleagues have found that adding a second dynamo, close to the surface, completes the picture with surprising accuracy.

"We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs, originating in two different layers in the Sun's interior. They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different, and they are offset in time. Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97%," said Zharkova.

Zharkova and her colleagues derived their model using a technique called 'principal component analysis' of the magnetic field observations from the Wilcox Solar Observatory in California. They examined three solar cycles-worth of magnetic field activity, covering the period from 1976-2008. In addition, they compared their predictions to average sunspot numbers, another strong marker of solar activity. All the predictions and observations were closely matched.

Looking ahead to the next solar cycles, the model predicts that the pair of waves become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022. During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity.

"In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other

[Draggendrop Veteran]

Interesting article... but I think I will have to read the paper before I can form an opinion. The real solar cycle's are averages and vary constantly. The true cycle is actually approx 22 years with an 11 year polarity reversal and hence the 11 year cycle. The approx 11 year cycle can vary from 8.5 years to 14 years. If this model is actually that accurate, they should be able to backtrack more than 2 cycles...too small a sample group and hence should be careful of future predictions...Like the old saying.....extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  /s ( They must be looking for funding)

 

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-solar.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/15/solar-cycle-24-update-for-february-2015/

http://www.solarham.net/

http://www.solarham.net/cmewatch2.htm

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/

[T3X4S]

I agree, that is very interesting.  I'd love to read their sources, but I dont even know if I'd understand any of it

[Torolol]

IPCC should incorporates this into their "Global Warming" models.

[Draggendrop Veteran]

I agree, that is very interesting.  I'd love to read their sources, but I dont even know if I'd understand any of it

IMHO....If you have a keen interest in a subject, you can read and analyse most papers with these tools

 

1) Internet access

2) Dictionary

3) Thesaurus

4) Time ... and most importantly....

5) BS detection kit.....I use a modified Carl Sagan Bologna Detection Kit.....the original is paraphrased here...

http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/

 

Carl Sagan was ahead of his time......one of his quote's that I always use and sometimes forget to attribute because it makes so much sense is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".  Another one I like is by Mark Twain.."Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please"

 

Cheers.....

[T3X4S]

IMHO....If you have a keen interest in a subject, you can read and analyse most papers with these tools

 

1) Internet access

2) Dictionary

3) Thesaurus

4) Time ... and most importantly....

5) BS detection kit.....I use a modified Carl Sagan Bologna Detection Kit.....the original is paraphrased here...

http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/

 

Carl Sagan was ahead of his time......one of his quote's that I always use and sometimes forget to attribute because it makes so much sense is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".  Another one I like is by Mark Twain.."Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please"

 

Cheers.....

I always assumed the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" - was Christopher Hitchens - glad to know it was Carl Sagan.

[Unobscured Vision]

If this is accurate, and I'm sure they will be measuring the Solar Activity levels very carefully versus what the model predicts, then we've got an opportunity to put some Biosphere ideas to the test as well as the time to actually implement them -- IF Humanity can pull together as a species and work together.

 

And I'm not talking any kind of "End of the World" nonsense. Nothing that extreme.

 

No, sir .. we will need the ability to grow food supplies in a controlled environment on a mass scale in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres for, what, 7-13 years, until the Solar Output returns to normal? And since the Climate/Weather will likely be significantly colder for that 7-13 year period we will need a way to house large populations of people also, along with everything that entails.

 

This is an opportunity. An opportunity for people to come together and work together as a team. To learn that we're stronger together than not.

 

If we're truly as evolved and intelligent as we like to think ourselves as being, then let's finally prove it. That's my vote.

[TPreston]

This month there's been a hoopla about a mini ice age, and unfortunately it tells us more about failures of science communication than the climate. Such failures can maintain the illusion of doubt and uncertainty, even when there's a scientific consensus that the world is warming.

 

The story starts benignly with a peer-reviewed paper and a presentation in early July by Professor Valentina Zharkova, from Northumbria University, at Britain's National Astronomy Meeting.

The paper presents a model for the sun's magnetic field and sunspots, which predicts a 60% fall in sunspot numbers when extrapolated to the 2030s. Crucially, the paper makes no mention of climate.

The first failure of science communication is present in the Royal Astronomical Society press release from July 9. It says that "solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s" without clarifying that this "solar activity" refers to a fall in the number of sunspots, not a dramatic fall in the life-sustaining light emitted by the sun.

The press release also omits crucial details. It does say that the drop in sunspots may resemble the Maunder minimum, a 17th century lull in solar activity, and includes a link to the Wikipedia article on the subject. The press release also notes that the Maunder minimum coincided with a mini ice age.

But that mini ice age began before the Maunder minimum and may have had multiple causes, including volcanism.

Crucially, the press release doesn't say what the implications of a future Maunder minimum are for climate.

Filling in the gaps

How would a new Maunder minimum impact climate? It's an obvious question, and one that climate scientists have already answered. But many journalists didn't ask the experts, instead drawing their own conclusions.

The UK's Telegraph warned:

[…] the earth is 15 years from a mini ice age that will cause bitterly cold winters during which rivers such as the Thames freeze over.

Pictures of glaciers and frozen rivers loomed large.

A dramatic fall in the number of sunspots won’t lead to a dramatic fall in the light produced by the sun. Credit: NASA/SDO/Goddard Space Flight Center

News Corp's Andrew Bolt used the mini ice age to attack climate science. Many climate sceptic bloggers readily accepted the story, despite climate never being mentioned in the peer-reviewed paper.

The media failed in its duty to investigate and inform. It didn't seek expert comment to put the research into context. Instead journalists tried to answer technical climate science questions themselves, and mostly got it wrong.

As discussed previously, the impact of a new Maunder minimum on climate has beenstudied many times. There's 40% more CO2 in the air now than during the 17th century, and global temperature records are being smashed. A new Maunder minimum would slow climate change, but it is not enough to stop it.

The scientist at the centre of the media storm, Valentina Zharkova, told USA today:

In the press release, we didn't say anything about climate change. My guess is when they heard about Maunder minimum, they used Wikipedia or something to find out more about it.

Don’t put your ice skates on just yet. Even a new Maunder minimum won’t reverse climate change. Credit: CSIRO

Mixed messages

While Zharkova was surprised by the media coverage, she and others continued to discuss a new mini ice age.

If a mini ice age is at odds with the prior literature, why does Zharkova continue speculating about it? In personal correspondence with Zharkova, she told me it was only after the media coverage that her research was connected to climate change and the Maunder minimum. However, she said that once the connection was made, it did make sense to her.

Zharkova also told IFLS: We didn't mention anything about the weather change, but I would have to agree that possibly you can expect it [a mini ice age].

So it seems Zharkova's justification is based on media extrapolation of her own press release and Wikipedia, not the extensive peer-reviewed literature on the Maunder minimum itself.

I emailed Zharkova and she sent me two studies that support her views, but they aren't representative of the literature and I don't believe she has critically evaluated their content.

Is there any quantitative basis for claims of a mini ice age? Zharkova and her colleagues have cited a 1997 article by Judith Lean, who showed the sun's brightness (quantified by solar irradiance) was 3 W per m² less during the Maunder minimum than today. More recent studies, including those by Lean, find the solar irradiance varies less than was thought in 1997.

In plain English, the small change in sunlight reaching the Earth during a new Maunder minimum wouldn't be enough to reverse climate change. For the technically minded, even a 3 W per m² change in irradiance corresponds to a radiative forcing of just 0.5 W per m² (because the Earth is a sphere and not a flat circle), which is less than the radiative forcing produced by anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

To be blunt: no mini ice age for us. The real story of the impending mini ice age isn't about climate at all. It is a cautionary tale, of how science should and shouldn't be communicated.

The lessons to be learned from this is scientists must communicate their science concisely and accurately, especially if we are to avoid the media frenzy highlighted by the ABC's Media Watch. If scientists, science organisations and media aren't careful, they can inadvertently end up promoting dangerous misinformation.

http://phys.org/news/2015-07-mini-ice-age-hoopla-giant.html
 
 

[Draggendrop Veteran]

@TPreston  Excellent Post...hats off to you...that's what I call a post....Cheers...

[bguy_1986]

There are a lot of problems in the science community, communication is one of them, scientists skewing data to either support or debunk climate change is probably another.  I'll take it all with a grain of salt, and continue living life.  I want to breath cleaner air and do what I can to have a "healthy" earth without bankrupting myself (or the government).

[TPreston]

There are a lot of problems in the science community, communication is one of them, scientists skewing data to either support or debunk climate change is probably another.  I'll take it all with a grain of salt, and continue living life.  I want to breath cleaner air and do what I can to have a "healthy" earth without bankrupting myself (or the government).

Please do the same thing for all other science then take it all with a grain of salt. and continue living life...

Who needs vaccines anyway ? Who knows how old earth is ?

Science is just politics anyway!

Oh wait were just meant to dismiss the science which conflicts with our beliefs or politics " without bankrupting myself (or the government)."

Edited July 29, 2015 by TPreston

[bguy_1986]

Please do the same thing for all other science then take it all with a grain of salt. and continue living life...

Who needs vaccines anyway ? Who knows how old earth is ?

Science is just politics anyway!

Oh wait were just meant to dismiss the science which conflicts with our beliefs or politics " without bankrupting myself (or the government)."

Do you believe that none of these organizations are influenced by money?

[TPreston]

Do you believe that none of these organizations are influenced by money?

Yes as is all science so either dismiss all of it or accept all of it. You are engaging in special pleading using this as an excuse to dismiss climate science while not doing the same for other science because it doesn't conflict with your beliefs like a creationist does with evolution.

[bguy_1986]

Yes as is all science so either dismiss all of it or accept all of it. You are engaging in special pleading using this as an excuse to dismiss climate science while not doing the same for other science because it doesn't conflict with your beliefs like a creationist does with evolution.

You do the same.  I'm not dismissing climate science.  I've read what I feel I need to.  You agree that organizations are influenced by money.  I'm not going to hop on some bandwagon that goes from Global Warming to Climate Change in 10 years.  Earth has been around for a long time.  We're probably not going to have a handle on everything for quiet some time.

I'm waiting for somebody intelligent to come along (like Elon Musk) to make technologies like Electric Cars and Solar Panels cheaper and cost effective, instead of fear mongering everybody to go "green".

[TPreston]

You do the same. 

No I don't, I accept the findings.

I'm not dismissing climate science.

Yes you are you just said so two posts above this one

 

 

You agree that organizations are influenced by money. 

And you don't dismiss other science because of this just the ones that conflict with your beliefs.

 

 

You do the same. 

No I don't, I accept the findings.

 

 

that goes from Global Warming to Climate Change in 10 years.. 

No I don't, I accept the findings.

 

 

that goes from Global Warming to Climate Change in 10 years

When you build your worldview on lies don't be surprised when it comes crashing down.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=http://journals.co-action.net/index.php/tellusa/article/download/8969/10431&hl=en&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm3JCx0EyuRNl5lMo9XVtfrAnpcb3A&nossl=1&oi=scholarr

 

I'm waiting for somebody intelligent to come along (like Elon Musk) to make technologies like Electric Cars and Solar Panels cheaper and cost effective, instead of fear mongering everybody to go "green".

Thanks for letting your agenda for denying climate science hang out there all pink and naked