Solar Science

A blog of solar physics

Archive for the ‘Solar Cycle 25’ Category

NASA predicts weak Solar Cycle 25

with 5 comments

Yes. The same organization and the same scientist that predicted a strong solar cycle 24 according to a prediction based on changes in the Earth’s magnetic field, predicts a weak solar cycle 25 based on observations of the Sun (for a change)

May 10, 2006: The Sun’s Great Conveyor Belt has slowed to a record-low crawl, according to research by NASA solar physicist David Hathaway. “It’s off the bottom of the charts,” he says. “This has important repercussions for future solar activity.”

The Great Conveyor Belt is a massive circulating current of fire (hot plasma) within the Sun. It has two branches, north and south, each taking about 40 years to perform one complete circuit. Researchers believe the turning of the belt controls the sunspot cycle, and that’s why the slowdown is important.

“Normally, the conveyor belt moves about 1 meter per second—walking pace,” says Hathaway. “That’s how it has been since the late 19th century.” In recent years, however, the belt has decelerated to 0.75 m/s in the north and 0.35 m/s in the south. “We’ve never seen speeds so low.”

According to theory and observation, the speed of the belt foretells the intensity of sunspot activity ~20 years in the future. A slow belt means lower solar activity; a fast belt means stronger activity.

So what does this mean for solar cycle 24? Nothing. The slowdown now doesn’t affect the next solar cycle (because that must follow the behavior of the Earth’s magnetic field somehow)

Here’s the prediction
What’s more disturbing to me is that NASA refuses to contemplate any changes to the Earth’s climate even though the last three times we had such a weak solar cycle, the Earth cooled (the Dalton minimum centered around 1790-1810, the Maunder Minimum from around 1645 to 1710, the Sporer Minimum centered around 1420 to 1570). Obviously these three events coinciding with global cooling are just coincidences.

But NASA does love a good catastrophic spin on its Earth science articles:

This is interesting news for astronauts. Solar Cycle 25 is when the Vision for Space Exploration should be in full flower, with men and women back on the Moon preparing to go to Mars. A weak solar cycle means they won’t have to worry so much about solar flares and radiation storms.

On the other hand, they will have to worry more about cosmic rays. Cosmic rays are high-energy particles from deep space; they penetrate metal, plastic, flesh and bone. Astronauts exposed to cosmic rays develop an increased risk of cancer, cataracts and other maladies. Ironically, solar explosions, which produce their own deadly radiation, sweep away the even deadlier cosmic rays. As flares subside, cosmic rays intensify—yin, yang.

Yin, Yang? What about the clear connection between cosmic rays and cloudiness? Nowhere to be seen.

The article does make mention of the prediction that I’ve previously cited:

Hathaway’s prediction should not be confused with another recent forecast: A team led by physicist Mausumi Dikpata of NCAR has predicted that Cycle 24, peaking in 2011 or 2012, will be intense. Hathaway agrees: “Cycle 24 will be strong. Cycle 25 will be weak. Both of these predictions are based on the observed behavior of the conveyor belt.”

Well we’ll see. There is a Russian report than claims that Solar Cycle 24 will also be weak, but I’ll have to source it.

By the way, Wikipedia’s report on the Dalton Minimum is pathetic, a clear result of the oppressive censorship of the Global Warmers on solar influence on Earth’s recent climate. The entire article reads:

The Dalton Minimum was a period of low solar activity, lasting from about 1790 to 1820. Like the Maunder Minimum and Sporer Minimum it coincided with a period of lower than average global temperatures. Low solar activity seems to be strongly correlated with global cooling, although the mechanism by which solar activity causes climate change is not well understood.

Yes. Really.


Written by John A

March 28, 2007 at 8:44 pm