NCAR: "number of sunspots provides an incomplete measure of changes in the Sun's impact on Earth"

NCAR

Solar Cycle Driven by More than Sunspots; Sun Also Bombards Earth with High-Speed Streams of Wind

From an NCAR press release September 17, 2009

BOULDER—Challenging conventional wisdom, new research finds that the number of sunspots provides an incomplete measure of changes in the Sun’s impact on Earth over the course of the 11-year solar cycle. The study, led by scientists at the High Altitude Observatory of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the University of Michigan, finds that Earth was bombarded last year with high levels of solar energy at a time when the Sun was in an unusually quiet phase and sunspots had virtually disappeared.

“The Sun continues to surprise us,” says NCAR scientist Sarah Gibson, the lead author. “The solar wind can hit Earth like a fire hose even when there are virtually no sunspots.”

The study, also written by scientists at NOAA and NASA, is being published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research – Space Physics. It was funded by NASA and by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor.

Scientists for centuries have used sunspots, which are areas of concentrated magnetic fields that appear as dark patches on the solar surface, to determine the approximately 11-year solar cycle. At solar maximum, the number of sunspots peaks. During this time, intense solar flares occur daily and geomagnetic storms frequently buffet Earth, knocking out satellites and disrupting communications networks.

(Illustration by Janet Kozyra with images from NASA, courtesy Journal of Geophysical Research – Space Physics.) click for larger image”]solar diagramGibson and her colleagues focused instead on another process by which the Sun discharges energy. The team analyzed high-speed streams within the solar wind that carry turbulent magnetic fields out into the solar system.

When those streams blow by Earth, they intensify the energy of the planet’s outer radiation belt. This can create serious hazards for weather, navigation, and communications satellites that travel at high altitudes within the outer radiation belts, while also threatening astronauts in the International Space Station. Auroral storms light up the night sky repeatedly at high latitudes as the streams move past, driving mega-ampere electrical currents about 75 miles above Earth’s surface. All that energy heats and expands the upper atmosphere. This expansion pushes denser air higher, slowing down satellites and causing them to drop to lower altitudes.

Scientists previously thought that the streams largely disappeared as the solar cycle approached minimum. But when the study team compared measurements within the current solar minimum interval, taken in 2008, with measurements of the last solar minimum in 1996, they found that Earth in 2008 was continuing to resonate with the effects of the streams. Although the current solar minimum has fewer sunspots than any minimum in 75 years, the Sun’s effect on Earth’s outer radiation belt, as measured by electron fluxes, was more than three times greater last year than in 1996.

Gibson said that observations this year show that the winds have finally slowed, almost two years after sunspots reached the levels of last cycle’s minimum.

The authors note that more research is needed to understand the impacts of these high-speed streams on the planet. The study raises questions about how the streams might have affected Earth in the past when the Sun went through extended periods of low sunspot activity, such as a period known as the Maunder minimum that lasted from about 1645 to 1715.

“The fact that Earth can continue to ring with solar energy has implications for satellites and sensitive technological systems,” Gibson says. “This will keep scientists busy bringing all the pieces together.”

Buffeting Earth with streams of energy

sarah gibson

Sarah Gibson [ENLARGE](©UCAR, photo by Carlye Calvin.) News media terms of use*

For the new study, the scientists analyzed information gathered from an array of space- and ground-based instruments during two international scientific projects: the Whole Sun Month in the late summer of 1996 and the Whole Heliosphere Interval in the early spring of 2008. The solar cycle was at a minimal stage during both the study periods, with few sunspots in 1996 and even fewer in 2008.

The team found that strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams of charged particles buffeted Earth in 2008. In contrast, Earth encountered weaker and more sporadic streams in 1996. As a result, the planet was more affected by the Sun in 2008 than in 1996, as measured by such variables as the strength of electron fluxes in the outer radiation belt, the velocity of the solar wind in the vicinity of Earth, and the periodic behavior of auroras (the Northern and Southern Lights) as they responded to repeated high-speed streams.

The prevalence of high-speed streams during this solar minimum appears to be related to the current structure of the Sun. As sunspots became less common over the last few years, large coronal holes lingered in the surface of the Sun near its equator. The high-speed streams that blow out of those holes engulfed Earth during 55 percent of the study period in 2008, compared to 31 percent of the study period in 1996. A single stream of charged particles can last for as long as 7 to 10 days. At their peak, the accumulated impact of the streams during one year can inject as much energy into Earth’s environment as massive eruptions from the Sun’s surface can during a year at the peak of a solar cycle, says co-author Janet Kozyra of the University of Michigan.

The streams strike Earth periodically, spraying out in full force like water from a fire hose as the Sun revolves. When the magnetic fields in the solar winds point in a direction opposite to the magnetic lines in Earth’s magnetosphere, they have their strongest effect. The strength and speed of the magnetic fields in the high-speed streams can also affect Earth’s response.

The authors speculate that the high number of low-latitude coronal holes during this solar minimum may be related to a weakness in the Sun’s overall magnetic field. The Sun in 2008 had smaller polar coronal holes than in 1996, but high-speed streams that escape from the Sun’s poles do not travel in the direction of Earth.

“The Sun-Earth interaction is complex, and we haven’t yet discovered all the consequences for the Earth’s environment of the unusual solar winds this cycle,” Kozyra says. “The intensity of magnetic activity at Earth in this extremely quiet solar minimum surprised us all. The new observations from last year are changing our understanding of how solar quiet intervals affect the Earth and how and why this might change from cycle to cycle.”

About the article

Title: “If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals”

Authors: Sarah Gibson, Janet Kozyra, Giuliana de Toma, Barbara Emory, Terry Onsager, and Barbara Thompson

Publication: Journal of Geophysical Research – Space Physics

Related sites on the World Wide Web

Whole Heliosphere Interval (2008)

Whole Sun Month (1996)

h/t to Leif Svalgaard

====================================

Leif adds some perspective to this press release:

IMHO this is just another PR stunt, ‘never seen before’, ‘overturns what we thought before’, etc.

It has been known for a long time [decades] that there are strong recurrent solar wind streams leading up to solar minimum [EVERY solar minimum]. Attached are plots of the solar wind speed prior to minimum for many minima in the past. The blue curve show the speed derived from geomagnetic measurement and the pink curve shows that directly measured by spacecraft, some of the differences between the curves is due to missing data from the spacecraft [at times they only measured a small percentage of the time]. The smooth curves are 13 rotation running means.Also attached is the Recurrence Index, a measure for the recurrence tendency of the flow. High values = a solar rotation is very much like the previous one [the cross correlation between the two]

Sargent Recurrence Index - click for larger image
Sargent Recurrence Index - click for larger image

Especially the minimum in 1944 is very much like the current one in the sense that there was high-speed solar wind close to the minimum, even closer, fact. It is amazing that each new generation of scientists will have to rediscover and relearn what was already known. But such is human nature, every generation has to do this.

click for larger image
click for larger image
Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
344 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Adam from Kansas
September 17, 2009 7:24 pm

I wonder if that new finding could be part of the reason for last year’s Arctic temps. at this time to be warmer than today? A mention with a graphic on Intellicast showed the aftermath of a major geomagnetic storm on atmospheric anomalies years ago showing positive anomalies outside of the auroral ring.
Since it doesn’t seem like Sunspots are as a reliable indicator of the Sun-Earth connection as one thinks before some recent studies, we can’t really draw a conclusion that the Sun is not the most powerful climate driver, not until all the links are revealed which will probably take a while. The science cannot be settled at a consensus that Co2 is responsible for warming until all the links are found and even then if it shows the Sun is not responsible for climate changes.

rbateman
September 17, 2009 7:47 pm

Would this be the reason for the lag-time for GCR’s to take effect?
The level of GCR strikes on SOHO EIT camera has risen sharply of late.
This also begs the question: What happens when the coronal holes at low latitude shut off during a long and deep minimum?

Bob Long
September 17, 2009 8:04 pm

Someone mentioned this (WUWT on Australia’s ABC’s “Lateline”) on a previous comment, but here’s more information.
Co-author of “Unscientific America”, Chris Mooney (“I’m a fan of Al Gore”):
“CHRIS MOONEY: It’s extremely difficult because what you find with science communication on the web is both good science sites and bad science sites thrive and are popular and have lots of visitors. So in the book we talk about how an anti-global warming blog called the What’s Up With That? actually won the award for “best science” blog, which was pretty outrageous, but that’s the kind of thing that can happen because this blog is really popular.” [at 9:20 in the video]
Transcript and video:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2689429.htm

September 17, 2009 8:08 pm

rbateman (19:47:09) :
Would this be the reason for the lag-time for GCR’s to take effect?
The time lag is due to the fact that it takes a year for the solar wind to fill up the heliosphere, and we see this lag all the time.
The level of GCR strikes on SOHO EIT camera has risen sharply of late.
The GCR flux has turned now and is on its way down again.
This also begs the question: What happens when the coronal holes at low latitude shut off during a long and deep minimum?
They are replaced by coronal holes at higher latitudes. This is already happening.

Jon
September 17, 2009 8:12 pm

The observation of unexpected solar winds during solar minimums suggest that periods of low sunspot activity have little impact on the earth’s climate. The authors mention the strength and direction of the Sun’s magnetic field and it’s weakness during solar minimums. this would be the exact cause of increased cosmic radiation hitting the earth during periods of low solar activity. People like Svensmark and others have given this as a possible cause of increased cloud formation causing cooling.
Scientists have long puzzled as solar radiation itself cannot be shown to warm the earth to any great extent. This does not preclude the theory that the magnetic field has more to do with climate than fluctuations in solar radiation.

September 17, 2009 8:13 pm

Bob Long (20:04:32) :
So in the book we talk about how an anti-global warming blog called the What’s Up With That? actually won the award for “best science” blog, which was pretty outrageous
We also discuss good solar science, that you won’t find elsewhere, to wit: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/15/a-significant-sc24-spot-may-be-in-the-making/

timetochooseagain
September 17, 2009 8:20 pm

Is there any reason to believe that these effects are in any way uncorrelated or vary independently of sunspots? If not, then this wouldn’t effect empirical determinations of the relationship between solar activity and various things (including climate) that are based on correlations with sunspots, but it would effect the theoretical linkages. On the other hand, if these effects vary independently of sunspots, especially on long time scales, that might be rather important considering all the discussion over whether there are solar trends that can be associated with climate.
So really, just asking.

Editor
September 17, 2009 8:25 pm

Working through this from a layman’s perspective, so this is our magnetoshpere;
http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/sppb/Edu/magnetosphere/mag5.html
and sometimes the sun sends us intense blasts of charged particles as is show in the animation here:
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/04/29/european-chinese-satellites-watch-solar-storms-pummel-earth/
When this occurs, the results look something like these:
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003300/a003356/index.html
The first article states that, “Solar wind particles also rush through funnel-like openings (cusps) at the North and South Poles, releasing tremendous energy when they hit the upper atmosphere. The Northern and Southern Lights (auroras) are the evidence we can see of this energy transfer from the Sun to the Earth. ”
The natural question is how much energy is being transferred to Earth through this process?
Did an event like this:
http://dawn.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/Extreme_comp/
have a measurable impact on Earth’s temperature?

September 17, 2009 8:27 pm

Jon (20:12:33) :
People like Svensmark and others have given this as a possible cause of increased cloud formation causing cooling.
Except that the cosmic ray intensity has not shown any long-term variation since modern measurements started in the early 1950s.

Steve Huntwork
September 17, 2009 8:36 pm

Leif;
Are you saying that the cosmic ray intensity has not changed since the early 1950s?
What sources are you using to verify this claim?

theduke
September 17, 2009 8:38 pm

Bob Long (20:04:32) :
So which website does Chris Mooney think is a “good science site?” Which do you consider a “good science site?”
This should be good. If you have the courage to answer.

September 17, 2009 8:40 pm

Sarah Gibson is cute. Therefore, I believe her analysis. Sorry scientists. I love freckles.

JFD
September 17, 2009 8:42 pm

Leif, there was a super galactic ray influx in January 27 -29, 2009 resulting in a SSW that raised temperatures in the Stratosphere about 30 C. Could this event have any impact on the measurements made by NCAR? The super GCR did measureably impact the late cold winter and colder summer experienced in Northeast US. This event was actually accidently measured by muon count.
JFD

gtrip
September 17, 2009 8:51 pm

theduke (20:38:26) :
Bob Long (20:04:32) :
So which website does Chris Mooney think is a “good science site?” Which do you consider a “good science site?”
This should be good. If you have the courage to answer.
Am I missing something here? What did Bob Long say that makes you think that he is ragging on this (WUWT) site?

rbateman
September 17, 2009 8:53 pm

Leif Svalgaard (20:08:05) :
Not seeing that:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin8.htm
I am seeing a lessening of polar coronal holes, and that they never really left.
Strangely, the lessening is not unlike the Arctic Ice Cap here on Earth, as the alarmists would have you believe is about to happen.
Now, in your Babcock theory, what would happen to the Sun if it’s Polar Coronal holes shut down to a fraction of what they are now? That’s a hypothetical.

September 17, 2009 8:54 pm

Just The Facts (20:25:54) :
The natural question is how much energy is being transferred to Earth through this process?
About one millionth of that we get from the ordinary heat and light.
Steve Huntwork (20:36:58) :
Are you saying that the cosmic ray intensity has not changed since the early 1950s?
More precisely that there is no long-term trend. There is, of course, still the usual solar cycle variation on top of the constant background.
What sources are you using to verify this claim?
The various records from dozens of cosmic ray observatories, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/thule-cosmic-rays.png
http://www.leif.org/research/Moscow-1958-now.gif
http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRayFlux.png
http://www.puk.ac.za/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/nmd_e.html
etc, etc. Note that there are small differences between various CR stations.

September 17, 2009 8:58 pm

JFD (20:42:25) :
Leif, there was a super galactic ray influx in January 27 -29, 2009
No, there was a gamma ray burst. And it had no influence on anything, AFAIK.

September 17, 2009 9:01 pm

Bob Long (20:04:32) (Quoting Australia’s ABC’s “Lateline”): “So in the book we talk about how an anti-global warming blog called the What’s Up With That? actually won the award for “best science” blog, which was pretty outrageous…
Leif Svalgaard (20:13:37) (Responding to the above): “We also discuss good solar science, that you won’t find elsewhere, to wit:…
A heartening response, and one which validates the faith so many of us have in the capacity of weblogs to slip through the filters of power and control which many would impose in the names of “settled” and “science” and… um… pomposity? to explore new frontiers (and old) and discover new truths, and validate and invalidate old.

Steve Huntwork
September 17, 2009 9:02 pm

Lief;
Why the souces of neutron counts, when we are talking about gamma rays?
Does nobody have a daily count of gamma-rays striking their instruments?
Seems to me, some high energy experiments (neutrino) are conducted deep in mines, to minimize the measurement errors caused by gamma rays.
What is their gamma-ray daily measurements, since that is something very important for their error analysis of Solar neutrino counts.

September 17, 2009 9:02 pm

rbateman (20:53:42) :
I am seeing a lessening of polar coronal holes, and that they never really left.
The polar magnetic field has decreased ~20% the past couple of years as we would expect from the increasing new cycle flux.
Now, in your Babcock theory, what would happen to the Sun if it’s Polar Coronal holes shut down to a fraction of what they are now? That’s a hypothetical.
They actually do that every 11 years at solar maximum. They are gone, as the polar magnetic field reverses. The result is that the solar wind speed at higher latitudes is cut in half for the duration.

Bob Long
September 17, 2009 9:04 pm

theduke (20:38:26) asks me, I presume, (in response to Bob Long (20:04:32)):
‘So which website does Chris Mooney think is a “good science site?” Which do you consider a “good science site?”’
Well, I don’t know what Mooney thinks is a good site. He never said, in that interview.
And, “This should be good. If you have the courage to answer.”
I’m not sure what you mean by that. I think WUWT is good. If you thought I was criticising WUWT, then my apologies for poor wording. I was merely adding a reference to the transcript of Mooney referring to WUWT.

Bill H
September 17, 2009 9:04 pm

Leif Svalgaard (20:27:44) :
[I]Except that the cosmic ray intensity has not shown any long-term variation since modern measurements started in the early 1950s.[/I]
Cosmic rays are short term in nature. Their effects are short term as well. In watching cloud formations they can increase and decrease quickly. It is the net effect of that 1-2% increase on reflected heat.
I beleive it may be a combination of effects that create the swing of climactic change.
Just more proof that we don’t know as much as we think we do.

Steve Huntwork
September 17, 2009 9:09 pm

Side note:
When I visited Trinity Site, New Mexico a few years ago, I smuggled home a piece of melted sand from the nuclear blast.
Of course, I was rather worried how radioactive this melted sand was, so I created a cloud chamber with some dry-ice, alchohol and an aquarium.
At 4,500 feet above sea level, the background radiation levels were higher than the melted sand from Trinity Site!

rbateman
September 17, 2009 9:13 pm

Strangely, the lessening is not unlike the Arctic Ice Cap here on Earth, as the alarmists would have you believe is about to happen.
Correction: Should be
Strangely, the lessening is not unlike the Arctic Ice Cap here on Earth, as the alarmists would have you believe is about to disappear.

Ed
September 17, 2009 9:20 pm

Leif Svalgaard (20:27:44) :
“Jon (20:12:33) :
People like Svensmark and others have given this as a possible cause of increased cloud formation causing cooling.
Except that the cosmic ray intensity has not shown any long-term variation since modern measurements started in the early 1950s.”
Leif,
I don’t think the sun has changed much either since then, at least since 1960 (can’t wait until the two next cycles play out!), so I wouldn’t expect much CR change either other than some 22yr cycle ripple impact on the temp signal from the nature of the alternating peaking characteristics).
We should separate the correlation between the obvious solar connection (ramp up from 1900-1960 of debatable magnitude in temp) which cosmic ray cloud seeding could amplify, from the recent ocean driven (1980-2000). There is an obvious disconnect between temperature and solar from 1945-1960 (likely ocean driven), which would also cause warming when the oceanic cycles reverse to the warming phase (1980-2000). Otherwise there is no lag between the sun and climate (probably a little anticipation in the temp record?) and there certainly should be a lagging influence from the ocean. There is a daily lag, an annual lag, surely a decadal lag.
I think until we start combining multiple factors we’ll never correlate temperature with anything, which makes it easy to discount most everything.
I think there is a very good case for solar plus oceanic cycles (previous solar perturbations?), and cosmic rays may well be proven to essentially amplify the solar signal. We’ll see over the next two solar cycles to be sure!
But no single driver will correlate well with temperature…let’s combine please…
Ed

1 2 3 14