From the UK Telegraph – source link
The protective bubble around the sun that helps to shield the Earth from harmful interstellar radiation is shrinking and getting weaker, NASA scientists have warned.
By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent
Last Updated: 9:23AM BST 19 Oct 2008
New data has revealed that the heliosphere, the protective shield of energy that surrounds our solar system, has weakened by 25 per cent over the past decade and is now at it lowest level since the space race began 50 years ago.
Scientists are baffled at what could be causing the barrier to shrink in this way and are to launch mission to study the heliosphere.
The Interstellar Boundary Explorer, or IBEX, will be launched from an aircraft on Sunday on a Pegasus rocket into an orbit 150,000 miles above the Earth where it will “listen” for the shock wave that forms as our solar system meets the interstellar radiation.
Dr Nathan Schwadron, co-investigator on the IBEX mission at Boston University, said: “The interstellar medium, which is part of the galaxy as a whole, is actually quite a harsh environment. There is a very high energy galactic radiation that is dangerous to living things.
“Around 90 per cent of the galactic cosmic radiation is deflected by our heliosphere, so the boundary protects us from this harsh galactic environment.”
The heliosphere is created by the solar wind, a combination of electrically charged particles and magnetic fields that emanate a more than a million miles an hour from the sun, meet the intergalactic gas that fills the gaps in space between solar systems.
At the boundary where they meet a shock wave is formed that deflects interstellar radiation around the solar system as it travels through the galaxy.
The scientists hope the IBEX mission will allow them to gain a better understanding of what happens at this boundary and help them predict what protection it will offer in the future.
Without the heliosphere the harmful intergalactic cosmic radiation would make life on Earth almost impossible by destroying DNA and making the climate uninhabitable.
Measurements made by the Ulysses deep space probe, which was launched in 1990 to orbit the sun, have shown that the pressure created inside the heliosphere by the solar wind has been decreasing.
Dr David McComas, principal investigator on the IBEX mission, said: “It is a fascinating interaction that our sun has with the galaxy surrounding us. This million mile an hour wind inflates this protective bubble that keeps us safe from intergalactic cosmic rays.
“With less pressure on the inside, the interaction at the boundaries becomes weaker and the heliosphere as a whole gets smaller.”
If the heliosphere continues to weaken, scientists fear that the amount of cosmic radiation reaching the inner parts of our solar system, including Earth, will increase.
This could result in growing levels of disruption to electrical equipment, damage satellites and potentially even harm life on Earth.
But Dr McComas added that it was still unclear exactly what would happen if the heliosphere continued to weaken or what even what the timescale for changes in the heliosphere are.
He said: “There is no imminent danger, but it is hard to know what the future holds. Certainly if the solar wind pressure was to continue to go down and the heliosphere were to almost evaporate then we would be in this sea of galactic cosmic rays. That could have some large effects.
“It is likely that there are natural variations in solar wind pressure and over time it will either stabilise or start going back up.”
(hat tip to Dvid Gladstone)
F Rasmin and nobwainer,
Thank you for the correction, as I said I read it somewhere and just didn’t remember the number of zeros (too much time in the Sun without a hat). But the thought is the same, since we have no recorded history of what happens in this area of the galaxy, who knows what forces can act upon us. Not saying that there is, just saying who knows rather than the science is settled (A. Gore et al ad nauseum),
@Wyatt A:
I don’t think we should use the term “bubble”. It implies a boundary, a hard border. It is more likely a statistical transition region that is defined by how many and of what energy GCRs permeate the heliosphere. I’m sure that there’s no “light switch” or “step function” point in the heliosphere.”
It is described as a “shock wave” (Apparently the Sun velocity is supersonic w.r.t. the intestellar medium — e.g., faster than a density wave can propagate in that medium), so it might be a fairly abrupt transition.
Michael J. Bentley (21:59:42) :
Hey, we real engineers can handle words of three syllables. Otherwise, we’d have to call ourselves geeks.
Vincent Guerrini Jr (00:03:13) :
The expectation is for more maritime stratus and blocking sea surface warming.
Over land and at mid altitudes there are enough condensation nuclei for clouds to form.
The sun’s magnetic field is weakening.
The earth’s magnetic field is weakening.
What’s a guy with a magnetic personality supposed to do now?
The sun’s magnetic field has been weakening for the last ten years.
The earth has been cooling for the last ten years?
Connection?
It is hard to tell where they think they are going with this. Are they trying to tie the heliosphere to the sunspot cycles and gross solar activity (an almost obvious connection) or are they trying to frighten us with “the sun is getting weak, and we will all die of cosmic radiation damage”? If the former, then it certainly can’t get much worse as we are already at a minimum in solar activity and a turn-around is in the cards – eventually. If the latter, then I would REALLY like to see the data that supports continued secular reduction of the solar wind. This would seem to violate all that is currently known about the evolution of G-type stars.
“Without the heliosphere the harmful intergalactic cosmic radiation would make life on Earth almost impossible by destroying DNA and making the climate uninhabitable.”
How can we be sure that this isn’t just another “generated crisis” to scare people and keep federal funds flowing into NASA coffers? A new IBEX satellite will be launched to “gain a better understanding of what happens at this boundary and help them predict what protection it will offer in the future.”
How can scientists predict that? What if the prediction is that the shrinking bubble will keep shrining? Wouldn’t money be better spent on adaption technology?
Maybe tin hats and clothing is good advice.
Sorry, but after all the shenanigans and scare mongering of the AGW crowd, I’m more skeptical than ever.
John Finn:
“How much longer would global temperatures need to remain at current relatively high levels for you to be convinced that the sun is not, in fact, a major factor in short-term climate shifts?”
Not being smarmy here, but given that it was 36deg during the night at my home, and it was 60deg yesterday afternoon at 2pm, and that my days are getting shorter/cooler and plants are reacting appropriately, I’m certain the sun IS, in fact, a major factor in short-term climate shifts.
It seems as though your question contains several subjective terms, such as “current relatively high levels”, and “plunging temperatures”. Why not say what temperature pattern would convince you that the sun is not the cause of what we’re currently experiencing?
JimB
I propose a tax on all solar power systems. It is obvious that the decrease in the sun’s output is directly related to the increasing demand for solar energy. We have to stop using the energy from the sun to stop “SolarShrinking ™”
Who is Leif Svalgaard? I’m just curious. People seem to respect his opinion even if they disagree. Also, what is his stance?
Leif – If you’d like to answer, I’d appreciate it. I really just don’t know who you are and I’ve read your comments for the last few months now.
REPLY: Leif is a distinguished solar physicist – why not do your own research with Google, or visit his website leif.org – Anthony
I do not have the scientific knowledge that most people, who blog on this site have. I hate to sound political, but unfortunately many so called scientific studies seems to end up in some sort of crisis. The more sensational, the more government money thrown its way. We’re all getting numb.
One day there will be a scientific find that will merit substantial taxpayer money. Our coffers might be empty.
The discussion on this topic seems to be walking along the yellow brick road. A bit of reality here and there but mostly not, and with political undertones (love the hidden meaning behind the Wizard of Oz stories). I think the original article is media hype fueled maybe by scientists who might want to change the discussion from warming (which is kind of a dud at the moment and is not the hot topic it once was) to something else. Actually maybe even anything else. Any scientist who sticks to his/her guns through to the bloody end of either a verified or not null hypothesis has my vote. But then such theories that don’t have such verification do not get published, just like no one came to see the lightbulb filament that didn’t work. You will not ordinarily see “oops we were wrong” published studies where the bottom line is that after all that dull reading from the intro to the summary says, “move along folks, no news here”. So now we are being lead to believe that something that has happened before is suddenly called, “Now here is something worrisome that hasn’t happened in recorded history!” I prefer not to rubberneck this one. It kind of reminds me of the same folks who tried to get us to look at global warming and wring our hands and pockets of cash.
What current high levels, John Finn? As compared to the little ice age or the medieval warm period? Florida has been cooling and cold-sensitive crops have retreated further south during my lifetime. I suspect much of the vaunted warming is merely urban heat island effect and the rest can be laid at the feet of a warm PDO.
This is the same UK Telegraph that gave us the 1979 and 2007 ice pictures?
About the only thing I could glean from this is that it might be useful to replace the aparently broken down or worn out Ulysses. Most things that appear in the mass media are sensationalistic beyond repair.
A Modest Proposal
If we ARE indeed entering a protracted Solar Minimum (as appears increasing likely), I propose that it be named the Gore Minimum.
Alternately, if you are one of those folks favoring hyphenation as a matter of policy, the Gore-Hansen Minimum.
We owe it to our progeny to remind them again of the fruits of unmitigated hubris. (c.f Babble, Tower of)
HA Reynolds
Houston
PS Buy Coal.
I don’t know, I think I’m on the side of the skeptics on this, particularly after watching Frank Caliendo’s….er…Al Gore’s “Supernova” soon to be Oscar winning documentary. I don’t think the sun is going to a minimum at all – it’s taking a deep breath before it explodes – and am scrambling to find my 1.5M SPF sunblock lotion.
Do we have to have yet another crisis? What does this say about how our minds work? How far removed are we, really, from Black Age understanding of how things work, when we have something like this pop up? Frankly, I’m a little tired and cynical of the new age “priesthood” that seems to have their grip on us at the moment.
well, with TSI so low…
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_TIM.jpg
and the solar flux so low…
http://solarcycle24.com/
is it really any wonder that the heliosphere is shrinking? seems pretty logical to me despite the fact that it has gone largely unreported.
MarkW, if you believe Svensmark http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.html and i believe his theory has some merit, then there is a very strong link between the strength of the sun’s magnetic field and earth’s temperature.
REPLY: Note from moderator…please stop mangling URLS by placing them in ( ) or putting …. ahead of them. Just simply puts as this and I won’t have to fix them:
works http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.html
doesn’t (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.html)
doesn’t …http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.html
Thanks again Leif for bringing some sense into the discussion and much appreciated the link to the graph of the solar wind.
Ilya Usoskin at Oulu University maintains a graphic data base of the neutron flux (as good as any measure of how galactic rays penetrate as far as Earth’s atmosphere ) – and this shows a recent influx consequent upon the current very quiet sun, as well as other peaks for the previous cycles back to 1964. If Svensmark’s effect is significant, then the ‘lows’ in cosmic ray flux – especially at the 1990 solar maximum, will ‘pulse’ short-wave radiation into the upper 100m of the ocean – and the 1990-1991 max coincided with a major shift in ocean warming and cloud patterns – the opposite – a cold pulse is with us now. If the quiet sun continues with a low maximum as several solar specialists think likely, then the cool period could be prolonged. Ocean cycle peaks (ENSO is the only candidate now as all other cycles are entering the negative -cold phase) and volcanic activity could distort the pattern either way – and on the prediction front, the UK Hadley Centre have delayed their November publication of future climate projections – I think they may be re-assessing not just the PDO effect, but also how much longer the North Atlantic stored heat will last – sea surface temperatures are dropping out there right now after 20 years of warming.
John Finn: How much longer would global temperatures need to remain at current relatively high levels for you to be convinced that the sun is not, in fact, a major factor in short-term climate shifts?
Since we’re asking questions, how much longer would we need to have: increasing ice in the Arctic as well as the Antarctic, cooling oceans, and global temperatures dropping before you people stop believing in the myth of manmade C02-induced climate change?
Lief,
Thanks – Wiki is not one of my favorite places to go – so much there is, um, bad information. Nice to know some of it is still good. Besides that I was raised in the “book” encyclopedia era. Colored pictures came later, I had to deal with black and white.
Ric,
But that’s only true of MIT and School of Mines grads…
Mike
John Finn (02:15) : “How much longer would global temperatures need to remain at current relatively high levels for you to be convinced that the sun is not, in fact, a major factor in short-term climate shifts?”
I’m no climate scientist but very interested in climate science.
There is a thermal delay (even if Lockwood didn’t know this). We’ll never have abrupt shifts due to the sun only, and its activity is never corresponding to a certain temperature. That’s a naive suggestion which shows lack of understanding of the earth’s climate system (where e.g. the oceans are the most important factor for regional and short time climate changes and which is very complicated).
Still we have a sun-climate correlation since the 19th century, but PDO+AMO has an even better correlation. (Sun activity and ENSO may very well be linked, due to e.g. Robert Bakers research; it seems we have a quite direct climate control from the ocean oscillation. See “Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming“, here:
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo/CompoSardeshmukh2007a.pdf )
Remember e.g. that 1998 was a solar minimum during the El Nino.
But why shall anyone deny what IPCC – this absolute definition of truth – isn’t denying? IPCC admits in AR4 that there is a correlation between solar min and max in the 11 years solar cycle, of the magnitude 0,2 degrees C. That magnitude would not be possible from changes in the strength of the radiation output of the sun alone. (Maybe IPCC explain this with positive feedbacks – which are unlikely and now disproved.)
All major encyclopedias say that solar minimums – like Sporer, Maunder, and Dalton – caused periods of cooler climate, and that the sun activity is linked to temperature. Encyclopedias are not scientific truth, but it’s interesting that those defending the absolute weak CO2 theory, which stands solely upon unlikely and now falsified positive feedbacks, always refuse to admit that the sun activity affects the climate of the earth. I don’t say it must do that, but data shows it does, and the cosmoclimatology theory is strong due to all different research. (It’s a bit like the refusal of climate change in history, or the refusal that warmer climate has been and will be good for mankind; I would like to believe CO2 will give us a lot of warming.)
There is no direct control from the sun, but a slow one where PDO and AMO more directly controls the climate. That is at least what correlations of a few hundred years of data tells us, as well as historical data from proxies.
But to summarize this in and answer to your question: If the temperature (and not solely GISS, but rather satellite data only) goes up and the sun activity stays very low I think that is a blast on the sun-climate connection hypothesis – no new El Ninos taken into account. I think that some few years of almost flat temperature doesn’t tells us much in either way.
–
BTW: The improved energy balance for climate models from Miskolczi has in an empirical study been proven to give an adequate result; the GHG concentration has been constant for 60 years. Look here:
http://landshape.org/enm/significance-of-global-warming/
No extra GHG means no extra warming from GHG, doesn’t it? Thus it’s more likely that the most active sun in more than 1000 during the late 20th century caused the warm climate late in that century.
And the result from the Aqua – less water vapor when it’s warm – seems to be correct…
I can’t believe that they are baffled. Maybe the couse is the same thing that is causing the long inactivity of the sun spot cycles. Just a wild guess…
Moderator…isn’t “mangle” a bit strong? LOL.
The solar magnetic field has had quite a few perturbations over the last three days.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/MAG_7d.html
Anyone have an idea of why this occurred? Was it the crossing of the SC24 sunspot that occurred recently?