Update:

See John Coleman’s report on KUSI on the solar downturn here.

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.

“The solar cycle may be going into a hiatus,” Frank Hill, associate director of the National Solar Observatory’s Solar Synoptic Network, said in a news briefing today (June 14).

The studies looked at a missing jet stream in the solar interior, fading sunspots on the sun’s visible surface, and changes in the corona and near the poles. [Photos: Sunspots on Earth’s Star]

“This is highly unusual and unexpected,” Hill said. “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.”

Spots on the sun

Sunspots are temporary patches on the surface of the sun that are caused by intense magnetic activity. These structures sometimes erupt into energetic solar storms that send streams of charged particles into space.

Since powerful charged particles from solar storms can occasionally wreak havoc on Earth’s magnetic field by knocking out power grids or disrupting satellites in orbit, a calmer solar cycle could have its advantages.

Astronomers study mysterious sunspots because their number and frequency act as indicators of the sun’s activity, which ebbs and flows in an 11-year cycle. Typically, a cycle takes roughly 5.5 years to move from a solar minimum, when there are few sunspots, to the solar maximum, during which sunspot activity is amplified.

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. [Video: Rivers of Fire Inflame Sunspots]

Hill is the lead author of one of the studies that used data from the Global Oscillation Network Group to look at characteristics of the solar interior. (The group includes six observing stations around the world.) The astronomers examined an east-west zonal wind flow inside the sun, called torsional oscillation. 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.

“We expected to see the start of the zonal flow for Cycle 25 by now, but we see no sign of it,” Hill said. “The flow for Cycle 25 should have appeared in 2008 or 2009. This leads us to believe that the next cycle will be very much delayed, with a minimum longer than the one we just went through.”

Hill estimated that the start of Cycle 25 could be delayed to 2021 or 2022 and will be very weak, if it even happens at all.

The sun’s magnetic field

In the second study, researchers tracked a long-term weakening trend in the strength of sunspots, and predict that by the next solar cycle, magnetic fields erupting on the sun will be so weak that few, if any, sunspots will be formed.

With more than 13 years of sunspot data collected at the McMath-Pierce Telescope at Kitt Peak in Arizona, Matt Penn and William Livingston observed that the average magnetic field strength declined significantly during Cycle 23 and now into Cycle 24. Consequently, sunspot temperatures have risen, they observed.

If the trend continues, the sun’s magnetic field strength will drop below a certain threshold and sunspots will largely disappear; the field no longer will be strong enough to overcome such convective forces on the solar surface.

In a separate study, Richard Altrock, manager of the Air Force’s coronal research program at NSO’s facility in New Mexico, examined the sun’s corona and observed a slowdown of the magnetic activity’s usual “rush to the poles.”

“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 said. “Changes we see in the corona reflect changes deep inside the sun.”

Altrock sifted through 40 years of observations from NSO’s 16-inch (40 centimeters) coronagraphic telescope.

New solar activity typically emerges at a latitude of about 70 degrees at the start of the solar cycle, then moves toward the equator. The new magnetic field simultaneously pushes remnants of the past cycle as far as 85 degrees toward the poles. The current cycle, however, is showing some different behavior.

“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,” Altrock said. “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. … No one knows what the sun will do in that case.”

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.”

Government leaders and policy makers should take notice of the findings of this important new analysis of the world food situation; for doing what climate alarmists claim is needed to fight global warming will surely consign earth’s human population to a world of woe, while doing next to nothing in terms of altering the current warm phase of the planet’s surface temperature.

A new study by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change—Estimates of Global Food Production in the Year 2050: Will We Produce Enough to Adequately Feed the World?—reveals that a very real and devastating food crisis is looming on the horizon, and continuing advancements in agricultural technology and expertise will most likely not be able to bridge the gap between global food supply and global food demand just a few short years from now.

Crop yield and production data were utilized to identify the crops that supply 95% of the food needs of (1) the world, (2) six large regions into which the world may be divided, (3) twenty sub-regions, and (4) the world’s twenty-five most populated countries. Recent productivity trends of these key crops were then projected to the year 2050 for each of the specified geographical areas, revealing that expected advances in agricultural technology and expertise will increase the food production potential of many countries and regions. However, these advances will not increase production fast enough to meet the needs of the planet’s even faster-growing human population. But when the positive impact of Earth’s rising atmospheric CO2 concentration on crop yields was considered, the severity of the pending food shortage was found to be considerably lessened.

“Having evolved at much higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than those of the current geological period, many land plants grow substantially better with more CO2,” says Dr. William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University, who states that the report “provides a very thorough review of the beneficial role of increased CO2 on mankind’s most important agricultural crops.”

In order to avoid the unpalatable consequences of unprecedented widespread hunger - and even starvation - in the years and decades ahead, the study’s author, Dr. Craig Idso, contends that “a commitment similar to that which drove the Apollo moon-mission is needed to increase crop yields per unit of land area, per amount of nutrients applied, and per amount of water used.” And about the only way of successfully doing so without the taking of unconscionable amounts of land and water from nature and thereby driving untold numbers of plant and animal species to extinction, is to “invest the time, effort and capital that is required to identify, and to then use, the major food crop genotypes that respond most strongly to atmospheric CO2 enrichment.”

However, rising CO2 concentrations are considered by many people to be the primary cause of what is claimed to be unprecedented global warming; and if regulations restricting anthropogenic CO2 emissions are enacted to fight this perceived but likely phantom problem, Idso contends that they will “greatly exacerbate” food shortfalls by reducing the CO2-induced yield enhancements that are needed to supplement the productivity increases provided by expected future advances in agricultural technology and expertise. And in the wake of such emissions regulations, hundreds of millions of people the world over will likely experience significant hunger and malnutrition.

Government leaders and policy makers should take notice of the findings of this important new analysis of the world food situation; for doing what climate alarmists claim is needed to fight global warming will surely consign earth’s human population to a world of woe, while doing next to nothing in terms of altering the current warm phase of the planet’s surface temperature.

The report can be viewed or downloaded at the website of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Questions about the report can be addressed to Dr. Craig Idso at the email address contactus@co2science.org.

Readers may recall I wrote in this article about my family memorial day excursion to Crater Lake:

Crater Lake happens to have a USHCN weather station, and it is one of the few stations that GISS excludes (they have an exclusion code for it in their software Mosher located some time ago).

Steve Mosher commented in detail about that:
--------

Thanks for remembering that Anthony.

In addition to crater Lake there were 4 other northern California stations that GISS had removed from the data. In the paper Hansen merely says this:

The strong cooling that exists in the unlit station data in the northern California region is not found in either the periurban or urban stations either with or without any of the adjustments. Ocean temperature data for the same period, illustrated below, has strong warming along the entire West Coast of the United States. This suggests the possibility of a flaw in the unlit station data for that small region. After examination of all of the stations in this region, five of the USHCN station records were altered in the GISS analysis because of inhomogeneities with neighboring stations (data prior to 1927 for Lake Spaulding, data prior to 1929 for Orleans, data prior to 1911 for Electra Ph, data prior of 1906 for Willows 6W, and all data for Crater Lake NPS HQ were omitted), so these apparent data flaws would not be transmitted to adjusted periurban and urban stations. If these adjustments were not made, the 100-year temperature change in the United States would be reduced by 0.01C

Well, I wanted to see the analysis, the code, that was used to make this determination that these stations were flawed. Gavin basically said the paper documented everything, but these words don’t tell me HOW it was done. It just says THAT it was done. Any way that was pretty much why I wanted the code released. When it finally was released, you will see that there is no analysis supporting the removal of these stations. Upon inspection you can see some flakey stuff with the stations, but I was looking for math that quantified the flakiness. In the end, these were excluded by hand.

The argument of course is that including them or excluding them amounts to a tiny difference. That argument never held much water for me. The question, in my mind, was how many other flakey stations were there and was there math that could detect it? I think that’s a good question. It doesn’t make me doubt the record, I just think its a good question.

------

I agree. I don’t know that Crater Lake data is flawed or “flakey”, it just may reflect the snow pack hanging around longer, creating a cool bias into summer. With the snow pack as heavy as it is this year, it will be interesting to see if that has an effect of suppressing mean temperature.

Concentration Camps To Re-educate Deniers Next?

It’s time to make public examples of those that disagree with reporter, and non-science-educated Richard Glover’s view of climate change. He would have skeptics “forcibly tattooed on their bodies.” Says the man, whom I’m willing to bet would not be able to explain a Lagrangian to save his life,

Not necessarily on the forehead; I’m a reasonable man. Just something along their arm or across their chest so their grandchildren could say, “Really? You were one of the ones who tried to stop the world doing something? And why exactly was that, granddad?”

Glover never says what form this cattle brand should take. Yellow and pink stars having already had their day, and the Mark of the Beast yet to come, I suggest a likeness of Alfred Wegener, a man who stood against the - strike that: the - consensus of his day, only to see his views vindicated in time.

Our would-be Australian comic Glover admits that “maybe the tattooing along the arm is a bit Nazi-creepy.” Only a “bit”, my dear?

As an alternative to imitating the Gestapo, he next suggests forcing his opponents “to buy property on low-lying islands”. He has the idea that this land “will become worthless with a few more centimetres of ocean rise”. As a duly elected officer of the Climate Skeptics Conspiracy, I accept this suggestion as binding, with just two provisos. The first is that our bids face no competition from other land speculators. Fair’s fair, after all.

To own a hunk of Hawaii - oceanfront Hawaii! A fraction of Fiji! Tracts of Tahitian Beaches! Imagine the views from the Virgins! White sands, palm trees, rum by the gallon! All at rock bottom prices, practically given away to those who refuse to heed the Chicken Littles of their day. You have yourself a deal, Glover, old man.

As long as you accept proviso two, designed to make the bet equitable. Writing in the June, 2011 New Criterion, Joseph Tartakovsky reviews the life of James Wilson, one of America’s founding fathers. Wilson, said, Tarakovsky

“mocks timidity about new legislation by recalling that the Locrians required a citizen who wished to propose a law to appear before the assembly with a cord around his neck and explain his reasons; if they were found wanting, he was promptly hanged.

We’ll buy the land, but you and your nervous brethren must immediately slip nooses around your necks so that if, say, in five years our beaches still exist, we can hang you from the nearest Bunya Bunya tree. I suggest1 that it would be unmanly - that is to say, womanly - of you to cavil with this bet.

Death Threats For Climate Scientists

Some Australian climate scientists have received death threats, over which Boing Boing inaptly calls “social media.”

These scientists are not enjoying threats because of their scientific activities, but because of their political activism. Seems a good many researchers are agitating for a new “carbon tax” to battle something called “carbon pollution.” It’s not clear what this is, but it must be euphemistic because of course carbon is the exact opposite of a pollutant.

But let’s not lose focus. Threats of death! Do meek men in lab coats who sport ill-considered facial hair and who sincerely believe they are “saving” their planet deserve to be told, “Shut up or die”? They do not.

I have investigated the matter and can say with certitude that the Climate Skeptic Conspiracy is not responsible for issuing intimidations via Twitter, Facebook, or any other media. We do not take in half-wits as members, and it is from this appalling group the threats originate.

I admit to jealousy: I have never received a death threat. That is to say, not since my days as a military man, where I heard with some regularity variants of the phrase, “Briggs, you ---. I’m gonna kill you!” And there was the incident where a sheriff, with whose son I had a tussle back in high school, drug me into his car and pointed his pistol at my nose and asked politely to distance myself from his spawn.

I suppose I should count the time, just last week, when a guy tried to muscle his car past me on 59th street, where I was crossing on foot. We exchanged words, but traffic forced him to drive on. Which he did, but only around the block, where he found me on 60th, and where we expressed views that most courts of law would interpret as threats of a mortal nature.

It is better said that I never received death threats for my political views. I am still hopeful.

I am old enough to recall the salad days of NASA.  Americans of my age vividly remember the scratchy images of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the Moon in 1969 and the pride we felt for our country. In the next few years ten more of our finest put their footprints in the dust of Earth’s one natural satellite.

Now NASA is using its own artificial satellites to raise the sea level.

The basics of the Moon’s effect on the daily oscillations of sea level have been understood since Newton’s Principia.  Newton showed that the twice daily tides were caused by the differential gravitational acceleration between the sides of the Earth closest and farthest from the Moon.  Newton’s classical explanation is quite adequate for mundane things like tidying up tide tables.  But we are in a different age, and the NASA scientists have other things in mind.

NASA’s artificial satellites are now raising the sea level.  No coastal city or dweller will be safe if NASA is allowed to go on with this diabolical plot.

Plan to raise sea levels

TOPEX and Jason satellites raising sea levels.

The preliminary steps of this diabolical plot came to fruition in 1992 when NASA lifted the TOPEX satellite into orbit.  This single satellite caused an immediate and well documented near double increase in worldwide sea level rise rates.  TOPEX was followed into orbit by the Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellites, which managed to maintain the elevated sea level rise rates after TOPEX gave up the ghost.  NASA could lift an armada of these satellites into orbit, and then you can kiss Manhattan and Florida goodbye.

NASA documents reveal the effect of these experiments.  The first shows the planet’s sea level prior to the launch of TOPEX and the second shows the Earth’s sea level after the lauch of TOPEX.

Sea level rise rate is about 1.7 mm/year prior to satellite launch (enlarged).

Sea level rise rate is 3.3 mm/year after satellite launch (enlarged).

As you can see, the instant the satellite goes on line in ’93, the sea level rise rate doubles.  Coincidence?  I think not!

In the plot below I have digitized the data from the two above graphs and translated them to overlay from 1993 to 2000.  The trendlines illustrate the stark reality: coastal cities are doomed unless NASA can be stopped.

Astronauts Fight Back

Harrison Schmitt went to the Moon on Apollo 17.  He has a PhD in Geology from Harvard.  Here are his comments…

Buzz Aldrin walked on the Moon with Neil Armstrong.  He has a PhD from MIT.  Here are his comments…

Walter Cunningham was the Lunar Module Pilot on Apollo 7.  He has a Masters in Physics from UCLA.  You can read his comments here (Houston Chronicle, 8/15/2010).