NASA Headline: Deep Solar Minimum

NASA Science News, Dr. Tony Philips

The sunspot cycle is behaving a little like the stock market. Just when you think it has hit bottom, it goes even lower.

2008 was a bear. There were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year’s 366 days (73%). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days: plot. Prompted by these numbers, some observers suggested that the solar cycle had hit bottom in 2008.

Maybe not. Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower. As of March 31st, there were no sunspots on 78 of the year’s 90 days (87%).

It adds up to one inescapable conclusion: “We’re experiencing a very deep solar minimum,” says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center.

“This is the quietest sun we’ve seen in almost a century,” agrees sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.

see caption

Above: The sunspot cycle from 1995 to the present. The jagged curve traces actual sunspot counts. Smooth curves are fits to the data and one forecaster’s predictions of future activity. Credit: David Hathaway, NASA/MSFC. [more]

Quiet suns come along every 11 years or so. It’s a natural part of the sunspot cycle, discovered by German astronomer Heinrich Schwabe in the mid-1800s. Sunspots are planet-sized islands of magnetism on the surface of the sun; they are sources of solar flares, coronal mass ejections and intense UV radiation. Plotting sunspot counts, Schwabe saw that peaks of solar activity were always followed by valleys of relative calm-a clockwork pattern that has held true for more than 200 years: plot.

The current solar minimum is part of that pattern. In fact, it’s right on time. “We’re due for a bit of quiet-and here it is,” says Pesnell.

But is it supposed to be this quiet? In 2008, the sun set the following records:

A 50-year low in solar wind pressure: Measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft reveal a 20% drop in solar wind pressure since the mid-1990s-the lowest point since such measurements began in the 1960s. The solar wind helps keep galactic cosmic rays out of the inner solar system. With the solar wind flagging, more cosmic rays are permitted to enter, resulting in increased health hazards for astronauts. Weaker solar wind also means fewer geomagnetic storms and auroras on Earth.

A 12-year low in solar “irradiance”: Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun’s brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and a whopping 6% at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996. These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming, but there are some other, noticeable side-effects: Earth’s upper atmosphere is heated less by the sun and it is therefore less “puffed up.” Satellites in low Earth orbit experience less atmospheric drag, extending their operational lifetimes. That’s the good news. Unfortunately, space junk also remains longer in Earth orbit, increasing hazards to spacecraft and satellites.

see caption

Above: Space-age measurements of the total solar irradiance (brightness summed across all wavelengths). This plot, which comes from researcher C. Fröhlich, was shown by Dean Pesnell at the Fall 2008 AGU meeting during a lecture entitled “What is Solar Minimum and Why Should We Care?”

A 55-year low in solar radio emissions: After World War II, astronomers began keeping records of the sun’s brightness at radio wavelengths. Records of 10.7 cm flux extend back all the way to the early 1950s. Radio telescopes are now recording the dimmest “radio sun” since 1955: plot. Some researchers believe that the lessening of radio emissions is an indication of weakness in the sun’s global magnetic field. No one is certain, however, because the source of these long-monitored radio emissions is not fully understood.

All these lows have sparked a debate about whether the ongoing minimum is “weird”, “extreme” or just an overdue “market correction” following a string of unusually intense solar maxima.

“Since the Space Age began in the 1950s, solar activity has been generally high,” notes Hathaway. “Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years. We’re just not used to this kind of deep calm.”

Deep calm was fairly common a hundred years ago. The solar minima of 1901 and 1913, for instance, were even longer than the one we’re experiencing now. To match those minima in terms of depth and longevity, the current minimum will have to last at least another year.

see captionIn a way, the calm is exciting, says Pesnell. “For the first time in history, we’re getting to see what a deep solar minimum is really like.” A fleet of spacecraft including the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), the twin STEREO probes, the five THEMIS probes, ACE, Wind, TRACE, AIM, TIMED, Geotail and others are studying the sun and its effects on Earth 24/7 using technology that didn’t exist 100 years ago. Their measurements of solar wind, cosmic rays, irradiance and magnetic fields show that solar minimum is much more interesting and profound than anyone expected.

Above: An artist’s concept of NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory. Bristling with advanced sensors, “SDO” is slated to launch later this year–perfect timing to study the ongoing solar minimum. [more]

Modern technology cannot, however, predict what comes next. Competing models by dozens of top solar physicists disagree, sometimes sharply, on when this solar minimum will end and how big the next solar maximum will be. Pesnell has surveyed the scientific literature and prepared a “piano plot” showing the range of predictions. The great uncertainty stems from one simple fact: No one fully understands the underlying physics of the sunspot cycle.

Pesnell believes sunspot counts will pick up again soon, “possibly by the end of the year,” to be followed by a solar maximum of below-average intensity in 2012 or 2013.

But like other forecasters, he knows he could be wrong. Bull or bear? Stay tuned for updates.

h/t’s to Pearland Aggie and Joe D’Aleo

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
300 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 4, 2009 1:42 am

vukcevic (01:14:54)
5 cycles sequence is important. Solar cycle anomalies as well as N/S asymmetry are subject to the 5 cycle sequence.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/CycleAnomalies.gif
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/Anomalies.gif
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/MaunderN-S-excess.gif

Link for 5 cycle temperature anomaly graph is:
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/mgt.gif

Paul Stanko
April 4, 2009 2:57 am

wenx (21:45:05) :
Leif Svalgaard (19:57:49) :
vukcevic (10:25:22) :
“1.4% less overall solar energy hitting the earth will not change the environment significantly.”
If the solar energy changed 1.4% the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere would change 1.4/4=0.35% of 288 degrees or 1 degree. The reason for the division by 4 is Stefan-Boltzman’s law.

Hi, I’m not Leif, nor am I pretending to be, but I am familiar with the Stefan-Boltzman law. First of all, all bodies are radiating bodies. Their temperature is always consistent with the radiation emitted. Their outgoing radiation is always consistent with the incoming radiation once it is in radiative balance, which is to say the temperature is no longer changing due to radiative processes.
Second, you would not divide the 1.4% by 4, you would take the 4th root of it! The 4th root of 0.986 = 0.9965. Taking the earth’s average temperature to be about 288 Kelvin (around 15C) would then suggest a new average temperature of 287 Kelvin (around 14C). So, assuming the 1.4% figure you started with is correct, we should not be surprised by a drop of up to 1 degree Celsius in temperature.
It should be noted that Leif believes the change is quite a bit smaller, on the order of 0.1%. In that case, the change becomes essentially undetectable. What really happens? Time to find out! We’ve now got the instruments to study a grand minimum to maximum effect if we should be so blessed.
Geoff Pohanka (13:21:55) :
They talk about the lack of sun spots but they dont mention that this solar cycle is the longest since the 1790s which predated the Dalton Minimum, a very cold period.

Sorry, this doesn’t agree with my records… I have Solar Influences Data Center’s International Sunspot Numbers back into the 1600’s. It shows an average cycle length of 132 months with a standard deviation of 15 months. Cycle 23, according to the 13 month smoothed ISN, has not yet ended as of Sep 2008 (most recent month of 13 month smoothed data available, as the most recent 6 months have to be smoothed into it). It is now 145 months long. Mean +1 sigma is 147 months. We are not even at 1 sigma yet! Cycles 4, 6, 9 and 13 are still longer. Cycle 4, from 1784 to 1798, is still a full year and half longer than cycle 23 in its present duration. A real statistical yawner unless it stretches out another 6 months.

John W.
April 4, 2009 4:31 am

anna v (22:05:08) :
John W. (08:29:48) :
I would add to your list two more total energy inputs:
1)gravitational, with the tides. This is not only friction but also continuous movement of waters in the ocean from the whole column, the cold bottoms and the hot tops.
2) geothermal not only the occasional active volcanoes on earth and ocean bottom but also the continuous heating from magma towards the surface, particularly at the ocean bottoms where the depths are large. In south african gold mines temperatures of 50C of the rocks have been found at 4 km down. Some ocean bottoms are 4km down and I see no reason the internal heating of a sphere ( nearly) would not follow the symmetry.

Thanks for pointing that out. I was focused on incident energy, and neglected internal energy. (Some sort of recursive making myself an example of my own point. ;^) )
The reason I focused my back of the envelope estimate on the Central Pacific was because its the location of the Nino events.
When I get some time for it, I plan to build a coupling model (one sq. km column) beginning at the outer atmosphere and continuing into the oceans until all energy is accounted for. Step two will be applying Maximum Entropy Method (MEM) to distribute the energy within and out of the column.

April 4, 2009 4:51 am

Paul Stanko (02:57:53) :
Second, you would not divide the 1.4% by 4, you would take the 4th root of it! The 4th root of 0.986 = 0.9965.
First, there has been no change of the solar output of 1.4%.
Second, but if there were, we can explore the consequence like this:
S-B law says S = a T^4. Differentiate to get changes: dS = 4 a T^3 dT. Divide both sides by S: dS/S = 4 dT/T, or dT/T = 1/4 dS/S, meaning that the percentage change in T [dT/T * 100] is 1/4 of the percentage change of S [dS/S * 100], so 1/4 of 1.4% = 0.35% of 288K = 1.0K.
Taking the 4th root of a small change is the same as dividing by 4:
(1 + x)^(1/4) = 1 + x/4 for x small.

April 4, 2009 7:08 am

I am sorry causing all the trouble over Stefan-Boltzman law.
Going back to the global temperature variations, and not being climate expert, it occurred to me that the Earth’s heat sink system might have some hysteresis built in. What I mean is that system may be absorbing or radiating heath on the wrong side of what would be a natural balance. If so than we would have natural short term oscillations between cool and warm periods, of order of few decades, which possibly may be superimposed on the top of long term Milankovic type cycles.
Is this within capability of the system as currently understood?

kim
April 4, 2009 10:02 am

Nice thread, folks, and thanks. I vote for Eddy Minimum; he liked words, and man, oh man, could he use them. Gore and Hansen will live in infamy without any more attribution than has already accrued to their work.
I’ve two questions. One is about Bill Livingston’s measurements of the internal magnetism of the spots we do see. Are they still on the decline curve to becoming invisible by 2015? This is an important point because disappearing spots is something the scientifically naive muddle can understand. Now, if we only knew the connection, if such be, between spots and climate.
Secondly, I’d be interested to hear Leif’s, and others’, responses to JohnW’s comment at 8:29 on 4/3. I think that his comment is very important, because it suggests mechanisms other than simply TSI which might impact climate. As we know(thanks, Leif), TSI doesn’t vary enough to explain the range of climate variability, without introducing a destabilizing multiplier. Might some of JohnW’s suggestions fill in the gap? Thanks in advance.
===========================================

Paul Vaughan
April 4, 2009 12:20 pm

Comment on Paul Stanko (02:57:53)
Solar cycle length statistics based on the assumption of a normal distribution are at best misleading (and at worst wrong) since the assumption is not justified on the basis of empirical observation.
More specifically: It is an error to use standard deviation to assess probabilities when the assumption of normality is not justified.
Q-Q plots and percentiles are the way to go, but even histograms will provide a good clue if one is attentive to the effect of varying bin-width.
– – – – – –
Re 1998 spike – note the sharp drop in atmospheric angular momentum (AAM) – which relates to zonal winds:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2008Q2/545/images/0414.png

Paul Vaughan
April 4, 2009 12:45 pm

tallbloke (01:25:42)
“Paul, please email me […] for the […] data. Let’s collaborate.”

Yes, let’s collaborate – but here in public with data that is publicly available.
To repeat my offer/request as it was stated:
Paul Vaughan (13:13:49)
“Can you (or anyone else) post monthly summaries of these z-displacements to a webpage in plain-text? I need at least 1891-2006. It would be best if you keep the format simple: 3 columns: Year Month z-displacement (nothing else).
If you do this, I should be able to shine some light on this pretty quickly.”

If anyone is trying to follow this exchange, context can be gathered by using your web-browser’s ‘Find’ function to locate all appearances of both “asymmetry” & “smoking gun” at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/21/the-sun-double-blankety-blank-quiet/
(The discussion moved because that forum was closing.)

tallbloke
April 4, 2009 12:58 pm

The Fisheries and Aquaculture department has some interesting stuff relating to LOD and zonal ACI too
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y2787E/y2787e06c.htm#FiguraC
Paul, please email me at the address upthread – thanks.

tallbloke
April 4, 2009 1:25 pm

Yes, let’s collaborate – but here in public with data that is publicly available.
I’m unable to use ftp via my mobile phone/modem, but I can email the data to you, and you are welcome to post it if you wish. I’m an open source kinda guy too.

Robert Bateman
April 4, 2009 4:08 pm

I’ve two questions. One is about Bill Livingston’s measurements of the internal magnetism of the spots we do see. Are they still on the decline curve to becoming invisible by 2015? This is an important point because disappearing spots is something the scientifically naive muddle can understand.
You can see a comparison between like numbered spots of 1913 and 2008 here:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin2.htm
You can do histograms with an AstroImaging program such as CCDSoft, AIP4Win, AstorArt, MaximDL etc.
I would like to be able to download images of 1913 that ostensibly Hale took at Mt. Wilson, and do some histogram comaparisons.
Because it looks like L&P is on track, the spots are losing thier contrast with the background, and they are fading fast.
The contrast is even falling on the MDI Continuum images.
I don’t believe this happened in 1913, but I’d like to know for sure.

Vinny
April 4, 2009 6:55 pm

Did anyone see the comment on Spaceweather.com They adjusted the spotless days from the current 27 to 9 are you ready because there appeared to be a spot on 3/26 that wasn’t counted. It must have been one of those specks that could only be seen or counted after 2000.

Paul Vaughan
April 4, 2009 8:37 pm

I’m reading about sunspot northern hemisphere / southern hemisphere (N-S) asymmetry – a branch of the literature I had never looked at before recently when I ran into some claims (of “provocative” correlations) which I wanted to assess rigorously.
(Note: The claims were portrayed as possibly being relevant to the present minimum.)
Today I encountered this claim (below) in Astronomy & Astrophysics, based on an analysis of sunspot numbers & sunspot area over an interval spanning 2 solar cycles:
“The existence of significant N-S asymmetries in the occurrence of solar activity and in the rotational behavior provides strong evidence that the magnetic field systems originating in the two hemispheres are only weakly coupled.”
Temmer, Veronig, & Hanslmeier (2002).
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0208/0208436v1.pdf
I will be very surprised if I do not find far more insightful papers as I continue digging, but I will appreciate comment on this claim from anyone who feels moderately (or more) qualified to address the claim.
Please don’t hesitate to comment even if you are not sure, as it may instill a sense of responsibility in those more knowledgeable to become active contributors – to correct the record.
– – – – – – –
tallbloke, “Rome wasn’t built in a day” may apply here. I’m content to be patient until you can secure arrangements to have the data hosted on a fully public site – so that the collaboration can be inclusive & transparent. [Re: tallbloke (13:25:21)]

savethesharks
April 4, 2009 8:42 pm

Thanks Tallbloke.
Question: If we were able to speed up time and turn the oscillations (such as global temps) into periods like that of ocean waves……would 1878 and 1998 be candidates for for being shrodinger rogue waves?
Steep-walled, non-linear crests that rob energy from surrounding waves, to gain unimaginable size?

Ohioholic
April 4, 2009 9:08 pm

Leif Svalgaard (04:51:41) :
“First, there has been no change of the solar output of 1.4%.”
So it is safe to assume that the current cold spell is not to blame on the sun, right? Could I coax you into a conjecture about what would happen if it did change?

Paul Vaughan
April 4, 2009 9:37 pm

savethesharks (20:42:20)
“Steep-walled, non-linear crests that rob energy from surrounding waves, to gain unimaginable size?”

Sounds like a description of the progenitors of our financial crisis.
You could be onto something.

April 4, 2009 9:58 pm

kim (10:02:13) :
Might some of JohnW’s suggestions fill in the gap?
1st: W/m2 is the appropriate way of measuring the solar input. 1 W is 1 J/s, so you get total energy E over the time t and the area A as E = TSI (W/m2) * t * A.
2nd: The TOTAL energy of every else [cosmic rays, solar wind, magnetic interaction, whatever…] is so minuscule compared the TSI that it is totally negligible.
So, I don’t see what the proposed mechanism is.

hotrod
April 4, 2009 10:00 pm

savethesharks (20:42:20) :
Thanks Tallbloke.
Question: If we were able to speed up time and turn the oscillations (such as global temps) into periods like that of ocean waves……would 1878 and 1998 be candidates for for being shrodinger rogue waves?

Not that it proves anything but if you take the graph of the shrodinger wave out of my first link and rescale it properly it will almost over lay the 1998 plot peak from the “RSS and UAH Global Temperature Anomalies for March 2009” thread above.
Both have the sharp single peak flanked on both sides by distinct dips. They are not “exact matches” but close enough to make you go “Hmmmmm that is interesting”.
I only did the over lay in MS paint so resolution sucked, but the similarity in shape is sufficient to peak your interest. If that RSS plot was smoothed properly except for the flanking dips being slightly wider and not quite as deep/sharp the general structure is almost identical.
Larry

April 4, 2009 10:02 pm

Ohioholic (21:08:43) :
“First, there has been no change of the solar output of 1.4%.”
So it is safe to assume that the current cold spell is not to blame on the sun, right? Could I coax you into a conjecture about what would happen if it did change?

would probably change the temperature by 1 K.
BTW, the solar input to the Earth changes 7% during the year [5 times more].

tallbloke
April 4, 2009 10:26 pm

savethesharks (20:42:20) :
Thanks Tallbloke.
Question: If we were able to speed up time and turn the oscillations (such as global temps) into periods like that of ocean waves……would 1878 and 1998 be candidates for for being shrodinger rogue waves?
Steep-walled, non-linear crests that rob energy from surrounding waves, to gain unimaginable size?

Hi Chris, That introduces an interesting philosophical question about the connectedness of time dimension. Rogue waves build up with the confluence of two or more waves in the continuum of the sea surface oscillation. The waves in front and behind the rogue wave are robbed of amplitude. This all happens ‘at once’.
The big El Nino event in 1998 also had quite a dip in temperatures before and after the event. The question would be: is the causality similar in both rogue waves and El Nino peaks? Perhaps the dip in temperatures preceding the event brings on some feedback which precipitates the release of energy from the pacific warm pool, and an increase in the trade winds which drive the warm water outwards to where it is spread by current to higher latitudes, El Nino. Then negative feedback (perhaps more cloud due to higher humidity/evaporation) redress the situation but overshoot and cause the dip in temperatures before a smaller recovery.
For more detail on that stuff try bobtisdale.blogspot.com and for a different perspective Erl Happ’s work at climatechange1.wordpress.com
As for the philosophical question about time, try ‘Wholeness and the Implicate Order’ by David Bohm or some pot luck with more recent texts on holistic ways of knowledge.

tallbloke
April 4, 2009 10:40 pm

Paul Vaughan
tallbloke, “Rome wasn’t built in a day” may apply here. I’m content to be patient until you can secure arrangements to have the data hosted on a fully public site – so that the collaboration can be inclusive & transparent.
Hi Paul, I have toyed with the idea of setting up a website for the collaborative study of solar system dynamics already, and when I get a new ADSL connection sorted out I may do so.
In the meantime it’s slightly frustrating to be unable to progress work on the correlation I discovered. And I’m concerned we may lose contact with you. I do value your offer and it’s great to have someone with real ability with stats take an interest. Maybe someone else here would mail me; rog at tallbloke dot net so I can send them the file and they can upload the data to a temporary page so interested parties can work on it?
Anyone?

tallbloke
April 4, 2009 10:56 pm

Paul Vaughan;
“The existence of significant N-S asymmetries in the occurrence of solar activity and in the rotational behavior provides strong evidence that the magnetic field systems originating in the two hemispheres are only weakly coupled.”
Temmer, Veronig, & Hanslmeier (2002).
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0208/0208436v1.pdf
I will be very surprised if I do not find far more insightful papers as I continue digging, but I will appreciate comment on this claim from anyone who feels moderately (or more) qualified to address the claim.

I came across the same paper. 🙂
From what I gathered, they noticed differentiated phase shifts in the patterns of northern and southern sunspots. They also noted that these ‘phase shifts’ were highly dependent on the averageing periods used for the studies. To me, a non-expert in stats, this would indicate that there are many different cycles and sub-cycles occurring in the resonances that affect sunspot production.
Speculatively: perhaps as many cycles as there are planets and planet pairings with enough oomph to make a difference. Roughly speaking; The four Jovians plus Earth and Venus. Perhaps a re-evaluation using a FFT transform of the solar cycle data to guide the choice of periods would help elicit some order out of the chaos. This graph may be a good place to start:
http://1.2.3.9/bmi/ray.tomes.biz/barycentre-periods.png

lgl
April 5, 2009 1:13 am

You can’t use black-body calculations on the grey-body Earth.
This mix of radiation hitting TOA with surface temperature is just nonsense.

gary gulrud
April 5, 2009 5:16 am

lgl: Which truth begs, why the jive?

Vinny
April 5, 2009 6:12 am

WOW is Einstein in the house. After you guys are done can you summarize it for us interested but lay persons.