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.
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.
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.
In 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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.


lgl (01:13:21) :
You can’t use black-body calculations on the grey-body Earth.
This mix of radiation hitting TOA with surface temperature is just nonsense.
The problem with the Internet is that people pickup stuff like this assertion without having any idea of what they are talking about.
The difference between a grey body and a black body is that the constant of proportionality between radiation and the fourth power of the temperature [yes, grey bodies have that same temperature dependence] is less than that given by Stefan-Boltzman’s law, or in other words S = e*a*T^4, where the emissivity e is 1 for a black body, but less than 1 for a grey body, Since the differential version of the law dS/S = 1/4 * dT/T does not depend on the constant e*a [thus not on e or grey vs. black], it is valid no matter what e is.
Leif Svalgaard (07:51:17) :
Since the differential version of the law dS/S = 1/4 * dT/T
should be dT/T = 1/4 dS/S, of course.
OT: SOHO has made it to the finals in the NASA Mission Madness contest: http://mission-madness.nasa.gov/mm/results.html?1
Don’t forget to vote on Monday/Tuesday.
Leif Svalgaard (08:01:32) :
OT: SOHO has made it to the finals in the NASA Mission Madness contest: http://mission-madness.nasa.gov/mm/results.html?1
Don’t forget to vote on Monday/Tuesday.
Since I had been voting for the Hubble, it is apparent that someone with programming skill and an interest in solar physics rigged the voting. Now I know. :~P
Tim Clark (08:27:02) :
Since I had been voting for the Hubble…
Which was beaten by LRO…
Now, do the right thing and vote for SOHO :=)
Leif,
And why is climate sensitity one of the most debated issues on this planet if you can settle it in a few lines of writing?
Read and learn: http://www.sciencebits.com/OnClimateSensitivity
Re: tallbloke (22:56:19)
As noted, I didn’t find the Temmer, Veronig, & Hanslmeier (2002) paper terribly insightful. (That’s my polite assessment.)
The thing that struck me about their claim was that it was based on an analysis of sunspot numbers & sunspot area over an interval spanning 2 solar cycles.
– – – – – – – – – – –
On another theme in this thread, why are we so attached to the word “grand”? Wouldn’t it be appropriate that Spoerer, Maunder, etc. Minima be known collectively as Eddy Minima?
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/eddy_int.htm
lgl (09:55:36) :
And why is climate sensitity one of the most debated issues on this planet if you can settle it in a few lines of writing?
You will notice that the sensitivity dT/T = 1/4 dS/S is exactly the same for grey and black bodies. Has nothing to do with that. The feedback issue is separate. The albedo issue is separate. Both albedo and emissivity cancel out of dT/dS as you yourself can see from the link you provided.
Where your deep confusion comes in is in not noticing that the T in dT/T I used is already 288 K talking into account the actual temperature, not the 255 K you assume it would be for a black body [including albedo]. As I said, just linking to stuff without knowing what you are talking about is one of the reasons this issue is debated with no end in sight.
lgl (09:55:36) :
And why is climate sensitity one of the most debated issues on this planet if you can settle it in a few lines of writing?
the link you provide is a prime example of the misleading ‘information’ that you find on the Internet. The black body assumption is for the emission and not for the absorption. So, the albedo should have been included in the black body calculation in your link. The general formula is
T = ((1-A)S/4/(ea))^(1/4). For a black body e = 1, and for grey body e is less than one. To get a feeling for how big this effect is one calculates [for A=0.3 and e=1] the 255 K. For a real [grey] Earth, one has be take e into account. Some representative values are for water e=0.96, for sand e=0.76, and for vegetation e=0.98. The effect of grey-bodiness is that the temperature must be higher for the same energy input, namely 2.5K for water, 17K for sand [it is hot in the desert], and 1.3K for vegetation, for a weighted average of perhaps 3K [depending on how you apportion water, sand, and vegetation]. That gets us up to 258K. Greenhouse gases and feedbacks add another 30K for an total of 288K. The grey/black issue is completely misplaced and obviously misunderestimated by you [to use Dubya’s apt phrase].
Paul Vaughan (09:57:30) :
Re: tallbloke (22:56:19)
The thing that struck me about their claim was that it was based on an analysis of sunspot numbers & sunspot area over an interval spanning 2 solar cycles.
For you gentlemen interesting in the N/S asymmetry here is a test case for you. Crack this one. Good luck. I would like to know how you get on.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/SC19-20.gif
Leif,
To know what the temperature will be you need to know the albedo, which may change, and the sensitity. So if the question is:
How will a 1.4% less overall solar energy hitting the earth affect temperature on Earth? The answer is: No one knows, not even Leif Svalgaard.
lgl (12:03:32) :
To know what the temperature will be you need to know the albedo, which may change, and the sensitity. So if the question is:
How will a 1.4% less overall solar energy hitting the earth affect temperature on Earth? The answer is: No one knows, not even Leif Svalgaard.
You changed your tone a bit. From “read and learn” to “nobody knows”. From your own link:
“λ=0.35±0.09°K/(W m-2). (Corresponding to ΔTx2=1.3±0.4°). Interestingly, this result is quite similar to the so called “black body” (i.e., corresponding to a climate system with feedbacks that tend to cancel each other).”
So to the extent that Shaviv [whom I’m supposed to learn from] knows, the blackbody calculation is pretty good, and to the extent that anybody knows the number I gave is not a bad estimate. This is a far cry from the ‘nonsense’ you called it.
I believe that Shaviv claims he has some inkling on low clouds and albedo etc, so not everybody is completely in the dark as you suggest [“nobody knows…”]
Leif,
The nonsense part is that your method is wrong. You need to know the sensitivity and you don’t, nor does Shaviv. You know very well that the Earth is a dynamic ‘organism’ where black body calcs don’t apply.
I never suggested that “everybody is completely in the dark”.
vukcevic (11:11:00)
“For you gentlemen interesting in the N/S asymmetry here is a test case for you. Crack this one. Good luck. I would like to know how you get on.”
I’m not really looking to “crack” this vukcevic. It’s just a small piece of a more interesting puzzle.
Let me again explain what motivated me to turn a scrutinizing eye towards climate modeling:
I encountered a government-sponsored graph that projected average daily minimum temperatures were going to overtake average daily maximum temperatures within a number of years.
Since the document was sponsored by a government that has implemented a carbon tax, the graph roused my suspicion of politics (or sheer stupidity) superseding undeniable truth.
By definition, the minimum trend cannot overtake the maximum trend. (And in layman’s terms: Who is going to believe nights are going to become reliably warmer than days??? – ridiculous.)
The sheer idiocy of the projection was what sparked me onto a path of reading nearly 1000 journal articles during the past year and performing countless analyses.
If the grassroots lift hard enough, perhaps we can raise the bar of integrity & conduct (or at least help power realize we’re not “seeing wool”).
Also: Maybe we’ll inspire a few scientists to try a little harder. Maybe we’ll evolve past the “There is no known mechanism” auto-responses that pepper discussions without providing answers — & perhaps these forums will influence the funding channels…
lgl (13:24:05) :
The nonsense part is that your method is wrong. You need to know the sensitivity and you don’t, nor does Shaviv. You know very well that the Earth is a dynamic ‘organism’ where black body calcs don’t apply.
That is why I used the grey body formula to ‘conjure’ the change [as the poster asked me to do]. I say again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Even the link that I was supposed to read and learn from substantiates my estimate. Now, you could have said: “I [and anybody else] have no idea what the change will be, but nevertheless the suggested change is nonsense, based on me not knowing anything”. But, remember that the poster asked me what my opinion was.
Tallbloke wrote: “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’”
I understand the “all at once” thing….but if you were to slow down the scale of time to where years equal seconds or even minutes or hours….all things being equal [and of course they aren’t…and I know I am treading on science fiction for now]…I understand all that…
But the fact is that the occasional steep-walled, deep-troughed, “random” freak wave postulated by Schrodinger is being used in many different fields now….
http://www.geotimes.org/feb08/article.html?id=nn_waves.html
And waves are waves.
They are transfers of energy…whether or not they occur all at once or over a span of many years.
I know you agree that that the oscillations of the NAO between positive and negative over the months, or the same of the AMO or PDO over the decades, show a transfer of energy…..a wave….which occurs more slowly that we as humans can practically conceive.
On the extreme…we could apply this idea to the Milankovitch waves….or others.
They are ALL waves.
Thanks Tallbloke for your responses and I always listen when you speak. 😉
Chris
Norfolk, VA
Paul Vaughan (09:57:30) :
Re: tallbloke (22:56:19)
As noted, I didn’t find the Temmer, Veronig, & Hanslmeier (2002) paper terribly insightful. (That’s my polite assessment.)
Paul, apologies, this is the paper I looked at:
http://spaceweb.oulu.fi/~kalevi/publications/non-refereed2/ESA_SP477_Vernova.pdf
LONGITUDINALLY ASYMMETRIC SUNSPOT DISTRIBUTION: A SYSTEMATIC
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO SOLAR HEMISPHERES
K. Mursula1, E. S. Vernova2, M. I. Tyasto2, and D. G. Baranov3
Perhaps you could comment on my ideas for re-examining the data after taking a look.
vukcevic, tallbloke, & anyone interested in the N-S asymmetry:
Have a look at this paper:
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/pdf/2007/45/aa8672-07.pdf
R. Donner & M. Thiel (2007). Scale-resolved phase coherence analysis of hemispheric sunspot activity: a new look at the north-south asymmetry. Astronomy & Astrophysics 475, L33-L36.
Very nice paper, with only a few forgivably-minor loose-ends that slipped through review.
Note: Its conclusions are backed up (in full ‘consensus’ style) by a very recent publication:
K. J. Li, P. X. Gao, & L. S. Zhan (2009). Synchronization of hemispheric sunspot activity revisited: wavelet transform analyses. The Astrophysical Journal 691, 537-546.
I have time to look at a few articles by Zolotova & Ponyavin before I have to put this down.
These articles establish the frame for any further discussions we may have on this topic.
– –
You might also benefit from taking a careful look at Figures 1,2,&3 in:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?2003ESASP.535…63B&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf
This article pitches some of what I was saying above at an accessible level (but be careful about getting caught up in the article’s theme about QBO – skip that part unless you have time to be very careful & scrutinizing).
Final note: In passing I found one website that reports the r^2 value I mentioned above, so there appears to be some natural convergence in lines of investigation.
P.S. to my last post:
In case anyone hasn’t yet invested what is necessary to develop an ability to interpret wavelet plots:
You’ll find a lot of unhelpful ‘junk’ on the web about wavelets that is a stunning repeat of the same-old (unhelpful) rant.
The only accessible introductory material I’ve been able to find on the net:
http://www.ecs.syr.edu/faculty/lewalle/tutor/tutor.html
The presentation format may seem a bit dated, but the site works sufficiently-well for those with a bit of patience.
Thanks Paul, I’ve downloaded the papers. I hope you’ll join us at
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=568&page=1
Where I have started a discussion on this topic.
http://www.ecs.syr.edu/faculty/lewalle/tutor/tutor.html
My browser was refused access to this document.
tallbloke, I wish you stamina in your exploratory journeys – and a good sense of timing.
I’m still here if you want to discuss the papers.
Those following along may be interested to know of the unique appearance of the solar minimum ~1913 (which received considerable attention above) in the N-S phase-difference graph (figure 4) in the Donner & Thiel (2007) paper.
Also, Zolotova & Ponyavin have entered the controversy over Solar Cycle 4 (1784-1799) – from an N-S asymmetry perspective:
Zolotova & Ponyavin (2007). Was the unusual solar cycle at the end of the XVIII century a result of phase asynchronization? Astronomy & Astrophysics 470, L17-L20.
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/pdf/2007/30/aa7681-07.pdf
(vukcevic might find the latter paper interesting)
Re N-S asymmetry:
This one’s important:
J. L. Ballester, R. Oliver, & M. Carbonell (2005). The periodic behaviour of the North-South asymmetry of sunspot areas revisited. Astronomy & Astrophysics 431, L5-L8.
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=bibcode&bibcode=2005A%2526A…431L…5BPDF
The difference between working with the following variables was not obvious to all N-S asymmetry researchers:
a) N-S
b) (N-S)/(N+S)
This is a good example of how traditional trans-disciplinary boundaries impair progress.
It is instructive to study both (a) & (b) – and a selection of other measures — (and it will be wise to not overlook what Ballester et al. (2005) are saying …as the error they point out could easily lead one to (accidentally perhaps) think spectral analysis results imply that….[hint: note the period of 11.8 years]).
N. V. Zolotova & D. I. Ponyavin (2006). Phase asynchrony of the north-south sunspot activity. Astronomy & Astrophysics 449, L1-L4.
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/pdf/2006/13/aahk283.pdf
For a concise overview – see the poster presentation (p.3) at:
http://espm.kis.uni-freiburg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/espm/Proceedings-Poster/p_2.2-54.pdf
I suggest digging deep into references cited by Zolotova & Ponyavin when assessing their works on N-S asymmetry. For a listing of recent Zolotova & Ponyavin publications:
http://geo.phys.spbu.ru/~ned/Publications.html
For anyone needing to learn cross-recurrence methods for detecting orbit similarities in nonlinear dissipative systems, the following site is excellent:
http://www.recurrence-plot.tk/glance.php
Cautionary notes:
1) Cross-recurrence (CR) math is dead-simple, even if the formal notation found in some presentations makes it appear otherwise.
2) Important: Pay critical attention to line of synchronization (LOS) isolation methods.
3) Note Zolotova & Ponyavin’s treatment of Ballester, Oliver, & Carbonell (2005).
Clearly the evidence points toward man made solar cooling! I mean think about it, we keep putting up all those satellites and the metal in them are draining the heat from the sun! 🙁 Anyway current status on MMGW is that, just like any other kind of mythology worship, it’s bunk. Here is a link to the current stats (as of March 2009) and it comes with pretty pictures and everything! Keep in mind the 1998 spike was do to el nino (Even the wack jobs admit that.).
I wonder why world oil production statistics aren’t news together with the cooling climate. It is very clear by checking IEA data that world oil production peaked four years ago in 2005. Those two facts together bode ill for a planetary population looking at a dramatically cooling climate in the face of declining fuel inventories. Hello, hello? Why are Democrats so desparate to lean into this left hook by raising draconian taxes on the use of fossil fuels? Why are they spending so much national treasure to convince us that WE are responsible for a beneficial planet-wide warming, when we know, and have known for decades it’s the sun? Why are they demonizing CO2, an infinitesimal trace gas essential to life-giving photosynthesis, which increases crop and forest yields at higher atmospheric concentrations. It just doesn’t get much more Orwellian than this. Clearly we have entered the “New Age of Darkness”.