science

Our anemic Sun–and its possible impact on future climate.

December 20, 2010

By most indicators, the Sun is not behaving as expected at this point in the solar cycle – and it hasn’t been for quite a while. The most visible indicator of solar activity – the number of sunspots – is far lower than normal. Over the last few days, the Sun’s surface facing Earth has been spotless.

We are currently in Solar Cycle 24.

The figure on the right, above, is a composite of historical monthly sunspot numbers as of early December from NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center superimposed over the same figure from March 2007. The red lines represent the 2007 predicted maximum and minimum monthly sunspot counts. The current average monthly count, which should be ramping up to the cycle’s maximum, is far below what was anticipated.

picture

In a paper published March 2006, David Archibald predicted that Solar Cycles 24 and 25 would be very much like Solar Cycle 5 and 6 – the Dalton Minimum. Nearly two years into Cycle 24, the pattern he predicted appears to be developing.

So what was the Dalton Minimum and what might a similar period mean for the modern world?

Bottom line – it’s going to get colder.

The Dalton Minimum was a period of low solar activity that lasted from about 1790 to 1830 in which global temperatures were also lower than average. If we are entering into a similar “modern” minimum and the correlation of colder global temperatures hold true, global “warming” may stop and global temperatures may drop through the end of the minimum.

By many indicators, global temperatures appear to have been relatively stable for nearly a decade – or more – already, except for perturbations caused by climate features such as the Arctic Oscillation, El Nino, and La Nina.

Some scientists believe that the recent warming that has been seen is simply a natural recovery from the cold period of the Little Ice Age, which may have resulted from several low solar activity periods. If that is the case, even if temperature were to drop over the next couple of decades, the overall trend, since the end of the Little Ice Age, may be maintained, temperatures may drop for the next 20 to 30 years.

Previous related posts:

The Sun Has Lost Its Spots, January 31, 2009
It’s going to get frosty, March 19, 2009
The Sun Has Lost Its Spots – Part 2, April 6, 2009
The Sun has found some spots – May 1, 2009
The Sun has lost its spots – part 3 – June 28, 2009
700 blank days and counting – August 27, 2009
The Sun has lost its spots – part 4. – September 17, 1010

{ 2 comments }

The Sun has lost its spots – part 4.

September 17, 2010

I check the status of solar activity and sunspots regularly – usually once a day, just a quick check, along with several other things I’m interested in.

I’ve also had a few related blog posts:

The sun isn’t as completely spotless as it was a year ago, but spotless days are still occurring – and, according to a new study discussed in Science, sunspots may soon disappear for decades.

Scientists studying sunspots for the past 2 decades have concluded that the magnetic field that triggers their formation has been steadily declining. If the current trend continues, by 2016 the sun’s face may become spotless and remain that way for decades—a phenomenon that in the 17th century coincided with a prolonged period of cooling on Earth. (Say Goodbye to Sunspots? by Phil Beradelli, September 14, 2010, ScienceNOW)

Financial Post - Lawrence Solomon: Chilling evidence

The study is also discussed in a Financial Post article by Lawrence Solomon:

We are now in the onset of that next sunspot cycle, called Cycle 24 – these cycles typically last 11 years — and Livingston and Penn have this month published new, potentially ominous findings in a paper entitled Long-term Evolution of Sunspot Magnetic Fields: “we are now seeing far fewer sunspots than we saw in the preceding cycle; solar Cycle 24 is producing an anomalously low number of dark spots and pores,” they report.

Their conclusions have potential “dramatic implications.” Cycle 24 could have just half the number of sunspots as the recently completed Cycle 23, and there could be “virtually no sunspots in Cycle 25.” The implications of their research points to decades of spotlessness. (Chilling Evidence, by Lawrence Solomon, September 16, 2010, Finanacial Post)

If this study proves out – and it is consistent with other studies and indicators – we are likely faced with declining global temperatures rather than global warming.

And that would not be good – far more people suffer and die as a result of cold than of heat. Extended periods of cold would have an adverse affect on crops. Frigid winters and cold summers during the Dalton Minimum, which lasted from about 1790 to 1830, resulted in massive crop failures, famine and death. The Maunder Minimum, also known as the Little Ice Age, lasted for about 70 years, from about 1645 to 1715, and “was marked by bitter cold, widespread crop failures, and severe human privation.”¹ The Dalton and Maunder Minimum were periods of low solar activity and low sunspot count.

The sun has not fully escaped the solar minimum between solar cycles 23 and 24. A typical solar minimum will see 486 days without sunspots. Since 2004, there has been 809 blank days, 41 so far in 2010, and the most recent just in the past week. If scientists were to use the telescopes of the Dalton or Maunder Minimum, the number of blank days would likely be quite a bit higher and many of the recent sunspots would not have been counted.

What do you think about the possibility of a colder future?

Of course, some may say that for long term forecasting, one would have just as much fortune depending upon the Old Farmer’s Almanac. Ironically, though, sunspots are taken into consideration in the Old Farmer’s Almanac forecasts.

We employ three scientific disciplines to make our long-range predictions: solar science, the study of sunspots and other solar activity; climatology, the study of prevailing weather patterns; and meteorology, the study of the atmosphere. We predict weather trends and events by comparing solar patterns and historical weather conditions with current solar activity.

¹ from a 2008 Livingston and Penn paper

{ 7 comments }

Atomic powered bomber

September 13, 2010

and

the answer to “Shades of Mad Max.”

The image use here was actual cropped from a larger photo of HTRE-2, reproduced below

Heat Transfer Reactor No.1 (HTRE-1 or “Heater One”) went to full power in January 1956 and demonstrated the principle of nuclear-powered turbojet engines. It was converted to HTRE-2 (“Heater Two”) and became the world’s largest materials teat reactor. HTRE-2 subjected test fuels to neutron flux and 2800°F temperatures, advancing the state-of-art for materials.

HTRE-3 or “Heater Three” was built more like an aircraft with the reactor, engine, shielding, and heat transfer systems in a horizontal configuration. Eventually the reactor could start and run two turbojet engines at a time. “The engine itself, including the reactor, was less than ten feet long. What you see is the framework that was needed to make sure the reactor did not take off across the desert. But the framework also contained many instruments to measure the performance of the reactor and jet engine.” Jay Kurze, Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion physicist and engineer.

Just yesterday, I posted a picture of a remnant of cold war technology and asked, “What is it?”

Three people responded and third person, someone I’ve known for a long, long time – since before the internet – got it right.

These giant metal structures are test stands containing atomic jet engines. They are remnants of a joint US Air Force and Atomic Energy Commission program to build a nuclear powered airplane.

When the program began in the early 1950s, no one knew for sure whether a nuclear reactor could power an airplane engine. Engineers designed a series of three Heat Transfer Reactor Experiments to prove the principle.

The experiments took place on these test stands. HTRE-1 was later converted to HTRE-2.

The next step would have been tests using an actual aircraft. But many leading scientist and officials opposed it.

“Heater 3” components included reactor shield, single chemical combustor mounted behind the reactor shield assembly, two modified J-47 turbojet engines and interconnecting ducting.

On March 28, 1961, President John F. Kennedy cancelled the entire nuclear bomber program “effective immediately.” The development of intercontinental ballistic missiles had made the bomber obsolete before it was developed and reports that the Soviets had an operating nuclear aircraft proved to be false.

The atom-powered bomber was expensive, impractical, and obsolete almost before it was conceived. Missiles and conventional jet bombers would soon be able to do the same job – long-distance delivery of nuclear weapons – more cheap;y and efficiently. Despite the fact the plane was never built, the research done advanced the state-of-the-art in many respects. For example, the experiments tested the behavior of metals and materials at very high levels.

“Most of today’s high temperature metals and materials technology we learned from the work on aircraft engines.” Richard Meservey, Nuclear physicist.

Heater 1 / 2 and Heater 3 are on display at the EBR1 National Historic Landmark east of Arco, Idaho at the Idaho National Laboratory.

{ 4 comments }

On the brink – lightning and huge hot rocks.

April 26, 2010

Another awesome video from the volcano. (video from ITN)

{ 1 comment }

More power of nature – visible volcanic shock waves.

April 24, 2010

In this video of the Icelandic volcano, Eyjafjallajokull, shock waves can be seen emanating with each explosive pulse of lava, clearly causing displacement of the cloud of smoke, ash, and steam.

{ 2 comments }

IPCC head Pachauri to face international inquiry on climate report mistakes

February 26, 2010

Meeting in closed sessions in Bali, Environment and Climate ministers from several countries are insisting on a review of the performance of the IPCC and it’s head, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri. According to a UK Telegraph article, the minister’s main concern is over Dr. Pachauri’s response to errors discovered in the 2007 IPCC assessment report on climate.

Environment and Climate ministers meeting in closed session in Bali last night insisted that an independent review should be carried out following the publicising of mistakes in its last report, and a row surrounding Dr Pachauri’s robust response to his critics. If his management is found to be at fault his position could become untenable.

Participants in the unprecedented meeting – held at the annual assembly of the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Governing Council in Bali – were sworn to secrecy over the decision and it is only expected to be announced after its detailed scope and composition have been worked out by UNEP and the World Meteorological Organisation, the two UN agencies that oversee the IPCC’s work.

The ministers – led by Hillary Benn, the Environment Secretary,and his counterparts from Germany,. Norway, Algeria and Antigua and Barbuda – refused to allow Dr Pachauri to decide who would carry out the review, insisting it must be completely and demonstrably independent of the IPCC.

Read the full Telegraph article: IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri to face independent inquiry.

{ 0 comments }

Global Warming: Meltdown

February 21, 2010

From KUSI News, San Diego, a special report:

Part one:

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9

{ 0 comments }

Climate science woes in Newsweek

February 20, 2010

A report in Newsweek, Iceberg Ahead, looks at the current state of climate science and politics… and how things got to this point.

What went wrong? Part of the blame lies, of course, with those who obstructed the efforts of the IPCC and the individual scientists, including bloggers who tried to sandbag scientists with spurious FOIA requests, and the perpetrators (as yet unknown) of the hack at the Climatic Research Unit. Part of the blame also falls on the climate scientists themselves. Many of them—including perhaps Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC head—may have stepped too far over the line from science to advocacy, undermining their own credibility. Some scientists, as a result, are now calling for a change in tone from antagonism to reconciliation. Climate science, they say, needs to open its books and be more tolerant of scrutiny from the outside. Its institutions—notably the IPCC—need to go about their business with greater transparency. "The circle-the-wagons mentality has backfired," says Judith Curry, head of Georgia Tech’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences.

{ 0 comments }

Virginia challenges EPA

February 17, 2010

From the Richmond Times-Dispatch:

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli turned up the heat on global warming yesterday.

On behalf of the state, Cuccinelli filed a petition asking the federal Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its December finding that global warming poses a threat to people.

Cuccinelli also filed a petition with the federal appeals court in Washington seeking a court review of the EPA finding.