From NASA Science News h/t to John-X
Spotless Sun: 2008 is the Blankest Year of the Space Age
Sept. 30, 2008: Astronomers who count sunspots have announced that 2008 is now the “blankest year” of the Space Age.
As of Sept. 27, 2008, the sun had been blank, i.e., had no visible sunspots, on 200 days of the year. To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go back to 1954, three years before the launch of Sputnik, when the sun was blank 241 times.
“Sunspot counts are at a 50-year low,” says solar physicist David Hathaway of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. “We’re experiencing a deep minimum of the solar cycle.”
Above: A histogram showing the blankest years of the last half-century. The vertical axis is a count of spotless days in each year. The bar for 2008, which was updated on Sept. 27th, is still growing. [Larger images: 50 years, 100 years]
A spotless day looks like this:
The image, taken by the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) on Sept. 27, 2008, shows a solar disk completely unmarked by sunspots. For comparison, a SOHO image taken seven years earlier on Sept. 27, 2001, is peppered with colossal sunspots, all crackling with solar flares: image. The difference is the phase of the 11-year solar cycle. 2001 was a year of solar maximum, with lots of sunspots, solar flares and geomagnetic storms. 2008 is at the cycle’s opposite extreme, solar minimum, a quiet time on the sun.
And it is a very quiet time. If solar activity continues as low as it has been, 2008 could rack up a whopping 290 spotless days by the end of December, making it a century-level year in terms of spotlessness.
Hathaway cautions that this development may sound more exciting than it actually is: “While the solar minimum of 2008 is shaping up to be the deepest of the Space Age, it is still unremarkable compared to the long and deep solar minima of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.” Those earlier minima routinely racked up 200 to 300 spotless days per year.
Some solar physicists are welcoming the lull.
“This gives us a chance to study the sun without the complications of sunspots,” says Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center. “Right now we have the best instrumentation in history looking at the sun. There is a whole fleet of spacecraft devoted to solar physics–SOHO, Hinode, ACE, STEREO and others. We’re bound to learn new things during this long solar minimum.”
As an example he offers helioseismology: “By monitoring the sun’s vibrating surface, helioseismologists can probe the stellar interior in much the same way geologists use earthquakes to probe inside Earth. With sunspots out of the way, we gain a better view of the sun’s subsurface winds and inner magnetic dynamo.””There is also the matter of solar irradiance,” adds Pesnell. “Researchers are now seeing the dimmest sun in their records. The change is small, just a fraction of a percent, but significant. Questions about effects on climate are natural if the sun continues to dim.”
Pesnell is NASA’s project scientist for the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO), a new spacecraft equipped to study both solar irradiance and helioseismic waves. Construction of SDO is complete, he says, and it has passed pre-launch vibration and thermal testing. “We are ready to launch! Solar minimum is a great time to go.”
Coinciding with the string of blank suns is a 50-year record low in solar wind pressure, a recent discovery of the Ulysses spacecraft. (See the Science@NASA story Solar Wind Loses Pressure.) The pressure drop began years before the current minimum, so it is unclear how the two phenomena are connected, if at all. This is another mystery for SDO and the others.
Who knew the blank sun could be so interesting?
Huge increase in Arctic ice yesterday http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
Don (14:03:19) :
I have a Question for you all. The last mini Ice age along with no sun spots also had increased volcanic activity. Could a lowered magnetic field from the sun be the cause of increased volcanic activity here on earth?
I don’t think this is plausible.
You can see more about volcanoes etc at:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2008ScienceMeeting/doc/Session4/S4_03_Crowley.pdf
“Equating flaring with activity is equally [or more] simplistic.”
Whew, missed it by that much! Does simplicity spatter?
“Could a lowered magnetic field form the sun be the cause of increased volcanic activity here on earth?”
One of the recent solar threads provided a link to a recent paper.
Gary Gulrud (14:55:36) :
“Equating flaring with activity is equally [or more] simplistic.”
Whew, missed it by that much! Does simplicity spatter?
Now that you know, you won’t be making that mistake again.
Leif:
Quite. Darn those pesky sunspot faculae, not causing as much variable output as was once thought…. 😉
So if the sun isn’t as involved in the stabilized temperature trend, then the long-term trend lines:
http://i32.tinypic.com/28h3dqh.jpg
&
http://i27.tinypic.com/25fuk8w.jpg
provide some comfort while offering a continued mystery. Which I think is a good thing!
The clerics are wrong, the apostates are wrong & the answer is still “out there.”
Two questions for the experts:
After the Eemian interglacial the Earth cooled rather steadily for 100,000 years. It was not until the Milankovich maximum insolation point was approached that the deep freeze suddenly broke. The Younger Dryas was a period of radical changes that happened during the Big Thaw. For the last 10,000 years (post the maximum insolation point) global temperatures have been steadily cooling. By “steady” I mean without the radical changes of the Younger Dryas.
Hence one suspects that cooling is self-reinforcing, and only when insolation increases to a threshold level does the warming happen, relatively suddenly. One might also conclude that radical changes such as the Younger Dryas are rare events that occur only when the self-reinforcing cooling is tipped by increased insolation approaching the maximum level.
Unless, of course, there are cases other than the Younger Dryas when radical global temperature change occurred. But I know of none, other than at the onsets of the Eemian and other interglacials. In those case it appears that a steady state was perturbed, wide swings up and down occurred, a maximum temperature took hold, and the system then settled down to a steady cooling again (with minor, not major fluctuations).
Question 1: Is that correct? Or are there other occasions in the paleo-climate record where sudden major fluctuations occurred, other than at or near Milankovich maximums?
The Milankovich cycles are insolation cycles. That is, Milankovich calculated theoretical insolation based on eccentricities in the Earth’s orbit. Insolation, then, appears to be the driver of Ice Ages (or more properly, interglacials).
Question 2: Is that correct? Please elucidate.
Mike Dubrasich,
The Younger dryas was caused by an interruption of the north atlantic current by melting ice from the Greenland area. All that fresh water didn’t allow the river of warm water to sink and continue flowing. When you warm the planet quickly and there is still a lot of ice to melt, you get these down spikes in temperature since this current distibutes heat world wide. The transition in western Europe was especially fast because Europe only stays warm and wet when winds blow over this warm water and then over to Europe.
Twinkle, twinkle, little spot,
how much we wonder what you got,
When Solar Winds stop thier blowin’ way,
those little spots just fade away.
Poof.
Dennis — At that time the entire Laurentide Ice Sheet was melting, right? And that was the source of the fresh water flood, right? So it is likely that a shut down of the N Atlantic current only occurs at such catastrophic times, i.e. sudden onset of an interglacial warmth after 100,000 years of ice build up.
Ergo, such an event (stoppage of the N Atlantic current) is unlikely to occur even if the relatively paltry Greenland ice sheet was to suddenly melt, which is also an unlikely event.
What I am saying is that using the abrupt changes that occurred during the Younger Dryas as a model or example of “common” or “possible” temperature fluctuations in our Late Holocene is a trifle science fictionish. The initial conditions are quite different now. Right?
I only ask because the dire reports of looming catastrophe from AGW sometimes strike me as unreasonable.
[THIS PERSON HAS BEEN PERMANENTLY BANNED FROM THE BLOG FOR IMPERSONATING DR. SVALGAARD – ANTHONY]
“Now that you know, you won’t be making that mistake again.”
No mistake, let me dumb this down.
Hypothesis: For all x, x implies y.
Induction: There exists an x that does not imply y.
Conclusion: The hypothesis is false.
You simply misconstrued the English, sorry.
leebert (17:11:42) :
“The solar wind is now where it was 100 years ago and the sunspot minimum is comparable to 50 years ago, so not unique on any of these counts.
There is, however, an interesting, and important, difference. At the very deep solar minimum in 1954, the solar polar magnetic fields were very strong [resulting in the very strong solar cycle 19], but at the current minimum, the solar polar fields are very weak [thus predicting a very weak cycle 24].
Dennis, Mike—I believe the Younger Dryas was caused by a piece of a comet hitting the Laurentide ice sheet 12, 900 years ago causing a spike in the temperatures an a huge influx of water then shutting down the THC.
This theory is well developed and presented in “The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes”.
Leif,
You say, above: “With only a score of well-observed solar cycles, it is very hard to define ‘normal’. There have been several minima that were quieter.”
Would you comment on the use of C14 records as a proxy for a sunspot numbers? My specific questions are below, but generally, I’m trying to understand something that I’ve seen asserted several times and which I have always considered settled science.
Part of this if to understand how meaningful the periods labeled under the various “minima” titles? (Maunder, Sporer, Wolf, Oort, Roman)
A Wiki recreation:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon-14_with_activity_labels.png
Basically, I have two questions:
1. Are C14 records acceptabe as proxies for sunspot numbers?
2. Do you consider C14 records reference points for fluctuations of earth’s temperature?
Thanks, Bill
Comments form any reader knowledgeable about solar would be appreciated.
“Comments form any reader knowledgeable about solar would be appreciated.”
I don’t have Dr. S’ expertise, but I’d prefer 10Be as a cosmogenic proxy. On creation it rapidly precipitates out of the atmosphere and forms relatively inert oxides of Mg, Al, etc.
Peaks in 14C on the ground seem to follow the peak in production in the stratosphere at high latitudes by 60 years. For such a chemically active element this poses problems in analysis.
Lief,
Who’s predicting a weak cycle 24? Seems like everyone at NASA is expecting a cycle stronger than 23.
Gary Gulrud (06:15:11) :
No mistake
Since it is not true, it is either an untruth or a mistake. You claim it is not a mistake…
There is nothing ‘simplistic’ in asserting that sunspots are a good measure of solar activity, because they are. Flares on the other hand are not.
Bill P (08:48:37) :
Both 14C and 10Be are imperfect proxies, but with appropriate modeling of the their creation/deposition processes they can be used with caution, so:
1. Are C14 records acceptabe as proxies for sunspot numbers?
Qualified ‘yes’
2. Do you consider C14 records reference points for fluctuations of earth’s temperature?
No, what has 14C to do with temperature? Nothing.
Gary Gulrud (09:30:32) :
10Be as a cosmogenic proxy. On creation it rapidly precipitates out of the atmosphere and forms relatively inert oxides of Mg, Al, etc.
Well, oxygen [not 10Be] forms oxides…
With proper modeling as I said, both nuclei are usable. They both have problems. One problem with 10Be is that its deposition [e.g. in Greenland and Antarctica ice] is somewhat dependent on the climate and also on volcanic activity, that influences the aerosols 10Be attaches to. Large volcanic eruptions, like 1883 [Krakatoa], 1810-1815 [several, including Tambora], ~1700 [Hekla], severely distort the 10Be record.
But with caution, both can be used. And, besides, we ain’t got much else.
Steve M. (09:42:12) :
Who’s predicting a weak cycle 24?
I am, http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
Seems like everyone at NASA is expecting a cycle stronger than 23
They will probably continue to do that until the tiny maximum is nearly reached as they did last time:
Estimating the size and timing of maximum amplitude for cycle 23 from its early cycle behavior
Wilson, Robert M.; Hathaway, David H.; Reichmann, Edwin J.
Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 103, Issue A8, p. 17411-17418, year 1998.
Abstract
On the basis of the lowest observed smoothed monthly mean sunspot number, cycle 23 appears to have conventionally begun in May 1996, in conjunction with the first appearance of a new cycle, high-latitude spot group. Such behavior, however, is considered rather unusual, since, previously (based on the data-available cycles 12-22), the first appearance of a new cycle, high-latitude spot group has always preceded conventional onset by at least 3 months. Furthermore, accepting May 1996 as the official start for cycle 23 poses a dilemma regarding its projected size and timing of maximum amplitude. Specifically, from the maximum-minimum and amplitude-period relationships we infer that cycle 23 should be above average in size and a fast riser, with maximum amplitude occurring before May 2000 (being in agreement with projections for cycle 23 based on precursor information), yet from its initial languid rate of rise (during the first 6 months of the cycle) we infer that it should be below average in size and a slow riser, with maximum amplitude occurring after May 2000. The dilemma vanishes, however, when we use a slightly later-occurring onset. For example, using August 1996, a date associated with a local secondary minimum prior to the rapid rise that began shortly thereafter (in early 1997), we infer that the cycle 23 rate of rise is above that for the mean of cycles 1-22, the mean of cycles 10-22 (the modern era cycles), the mean of the modern era “fast risers,” and the largest of the modern era “slow risers” (i.e., cycle 20), thereby suggesting that cycle 23 will be both fast rising and above average in size, peaking before August 2000. Additionally, presuming cycle 23 to be a well-behaved fast-rising cycle (regardless of whichever onset date is used), we also infer that its maximum amplitude likely will measure about 144.0+/-28.8 (from the general behavior found for the bulk of modern era fast risers; i.e., 5 of 7 have had their maximum amplitude to lie within 20% of the mean curve for modern era fast risers). It is apparent, then, that sunspot number growth during 1998 will prove crucial for correctly establishing the size and shape of cycle 23.
—-
They hung in there to the bitter end…
Re: 14C. The Thera eruption has been dated by archaeologic methods to 1425 A.D. +/- 50 years. Carbon 14 dating of local olive branches and Ice core data have more recently put it two centuries earlier. The problem arises in that 20% of ejecta from ultra-plinian eruptions are comprised of H20 and CO2 gas to support the column.
This means that the atmospheric proportion of CO2 can fluctuate wildly, e.g., as was the case in 1816 following Tambora and an earlier, unidentified, 1812 eruption when the proportion jumped from 300 ppm to 450ppm, declining over the next two decades.
As it happened, the century preceding 1600 AD saw multiple ultra-plinian eruptions in the Kamchatka-Aleutian chains. This, combined with the archaeologic certainty diminishes the value of 14C dating in this case.
“There is nothing ’simplistic’ in asserting that sunspots are a good measure of solar activity, because they are. Flares on the other hand are not.”
Nice dodge. No one implied flares were a ‘good’ measure, only that sunspots were not a ‘perfect’ measure. Compare once again Sept. 1996, following the May minimum with current data.
If your parsing of logic weren’t so unreliable I might be persuaded you were being dishonest.
Gary Gulrud (10:57:25) :
This, combined with the archaeologic certainty diminishes the value of 14C dating in this case.
It’s not about dating, as that can be done by counting tree rings and a reliable [to one year certainty] tree ring chronology goes back 10,000 years. It is, in fact, the error in the 14C date that gives us the proxy.
Nice dodge. No one implied flares were a ‘good’ measure, only that sunspots were not a ‘perfect’ measure.
You said ‘simplistic’, which is plain wrong. And sunspots are ‘perfect’ in the sense that they define solar activity.
If your parsing of logic weren’t so unreliable I might be persuaded you were being dishonest.
Is unworthy of comment, you should be ashamed of yourself.
“a reliable [to one year certainty] tree ring chronology goes back 10,000 years.”
Nonsense, dendrochronologies are proprietary, invariably use trees of a half-century or less in age, and their sequences are not uniquely assigned.
“And sunspots are ‘perfect’ in the sense that they define solar activity.”
So, you save this atomistic definition as your linch-pin following empty posturing as a logician. Well, your definition makes no sense in English to the interested public. Any measure of ‘activity’ that does not relate directly to energy output must fail to do so.
Moreover, your technique in argument only serves to demonstrate my point.
Thanks Lief, of course your paper does not come up when I googled predictions…not really surprsing.
Gary Gulrud (11:41:58) :
“a reliable [to one year certainty] tree ring chronology goes back 10,000 years.”
Nonsense, dendrochronologies are proprietary, invariably use trees of a half-century or less in age, and their sequences are not uniquely assigned.
From Wikipedia:
“Fully anchored chronologies which extend back more than 10,000 years exist for river oak trees from South Germany (from the Main and Rhine rivers).[1][2] Another fully anchored chronology which extends back 8500 years exists for the bristlecone pine in the Southwest US (White Mountains of California).[3] Furthermore, the mutual consistency of these two independent dendrochronological sequences has been confirmed by comparing their radiocarbon and dendrochronological ages.[4] In 2004 a new calibration curve INTCAL04 was internationally ratified for calibrated dates back to 26,000 Before Present (BP) based on an agreed worldwide data set of trees and marine sediments.[5]”
“And sunspots are ‘perfect’ in the sense that they define solar activity.”
So, you save this atomistic definition as your linch-pin following empty posturing as a logician. Well, your definition makes no sense in English to the interested public. Any measure of ‘activity’ that does not relate directly to energy output must fail to do so.
Sunspots are the visual manifestations of solar magnetic fields. There is a very tight and direct relationship between the total magnetic flux and the sunspot number. The energy of the magnetic field is given by the square of the field strength, so there you have it. Not logic, just physics.