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.


Just doing a little cherry picking….
For the first time in history, we’re getting to see what a deep solar minimum is really like.
Whose history?
We’re due for a bit of quiet-and here it is,” says Pesnell.
A ” Prediction Flipflop”?
These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming
Perish any other thoughts immediately!
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.
But don’t apply this rationale to climate change modeling.
Pesnell believes sunspot counts will pick up again soon, “possibly by the end of the year
But but but …. didn’t he just they can’t predict? Science can be so damned confusing to a layperson….
Regarding sunspot number determinations, this number (also called the Wolf number) is based on counting sunspots and their areas, and is generally thought to be reliable back into the 18th century. The smaller dark regions seen today (“microspots” as one commenter above called them) are not sunspots and are not included in the sunspot number determinations. As a result, statements such as “This is the quietest sun we’ve seen in almost a century.” are accurate, because today’s sunspot number is directly comparable to those of 100 years ago (and at least 150 before that).
pmoffitt (14:49:05) sez: “Sun spots are one thing- Ehrlich said we are all supposed to be dead. Nor did it impede the career of his coauthor on doom prediction- John Holdren our current Science Advisor”
Tell me more. I sure didn’t see that in the LA Times. I’m totally surprised. Next you’ll tell me he paid all his income taxes! Naah.
Skeptic Tank (15:26:38) sez: “Clearly man-made phenomena. I mean, what else could it be? Count me as the first ASM (Anthropogenic Solar Minimum) alarmist.”
Yes, indeed. We have failed of late to dance the ancient Mayan Macarena to propitiate the Sun God. Now he is warning us of our sins by readying volcanoes for the virgins we must sacrifice. (But I understand he’ll settle for a politician with a really big…uh…posterior. It’s quite an honor, actually. Bigger than a Nobel prize. Bigger than a CrackerJack prize, even!)
Some years ago, I finally realized that the media was lying to me. They were using cherry picked “data” (news stories), half truths, and opinion disguised as news to form my beliefs of the world.
I know little about the sun except that too much sunlight can be painful. So, I enjoy articles like the above. But when I get to the gratuitous “global warming” statement it gives me pause. Is the author a buffoon or a poltroon? Can I trust anything else in the article? It is as reassuring as if the article’s conclusion stated that the “Great Sun-God Ra was resting”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra
We enlightened elite all know that the Sun-God is really Helios. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios
Steamboat Jack
Dave The Engineer @ur momisugly 15:35:22)
Dave, NASA are not stuck in their paradigm. They are stuck in the paradigm of politicians who provide their funding.
This is a very important post. While they had to qualify it with the “not enough to change the course of global warming”, it is quite clear that the scientific community is beginning to take a serious looks at the climate effects of a deep solar minimum. I
The discussion of the limitations of the solar models and thus the implied limitations of climate models. The added comment that UV irradiance is up to 6% less. The discussions of weaker solar wind pressure. Each of these comments is a volley to breech Hansen’s fortress.
This is yet another reason why Gore and Hansen are so desperate to enact policy changes before the whole “house of cards” falls.
Hansen’s empire is crumbling. You will see a “piling-on” by all of the scientists who have been wronged or silenced by Hansen once it becomes clear that he is no longer credible and no longer a threat to their careers. I bet this will happen within one years time. Been there, seen it.
“These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming, but there are some other, noticeable side-effects.”
Doesn’t that statement admit that it WILL have an effect on the course of global warming? Are they referring to the recent cooling, then?
Modern technology cannot, however, predict what comes next. What really IS causing the recent cooling?
Per jorgekafkazar (16:36:17)
see here for a bit more on Holdren
http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/03/holdren-obama-science-opinions-contributors_0203_ronald_bailey.html
Nice to see recognition from NASA of what we have all been speculating about for…what…at least 18 months now?
In other breaking news – NASA computer modelling suggests that the sky might get dark at night.
Gore does not deserve to have anything named after him. The Nobel Peace Prize can be thought of as an anomaly, something that can only happen when a group develops dementia — they can no longer think and they have lost their memory. Peace? Let him and his carbon-trading corporations’ existences sink lower than all of our earnings, savings, investments, and retirement pensions.
Almost totally missed the bus, did we? I suspect it might have been the global warming fog that obscured their vision over at NASA.
Regarding the Stock Market reference…If Nikolai Dmyitriyevich Kondratieff was right in relating solar cyles to economic cycles http://www.kwaves.com/kond_overview.htm
chances are that the known preacher of climate calamities and most dark emitter of noxious and deleterious gases,will not be able to market his carbon shares….
“These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming …”
The writers are obviously confirming that the global cooling trend of the last 10 years will continue unabated.
Pearland Aggie (15:47:12) :
Your comment “I’ve never seen a prediction of how such cooling might affect, say for the sake of argument, the continental U.S.”
You haven’t seen such predictions because the States and Federal government have been busy making projections of the effects of warming. There is a list of these documents and a critique of each here:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/state_climate_profiles.html
When so much money is being thrown at you to examine what will happen with X degrees of warming, why would you even consider thinking about cooling? And do it on your own time and with no budget. Besides, doing so can get you fired!
Regarding the comment by:
philw1776 (15:23:24) :
Just because Hathaway has been wrong in his predictions he needen’t be trashed. In science you advance a hypothethis based upon what is known and extrapolating to testable predictions. […]
I will add this; Dr. Hathaway is constrained in making his predictions by the simple fact that they are NASA’s best estimate of the impact of solar storms on satellites whose life expectancy will be well within Solar Cycle 24. If he errs on the wrong side, well, a bunch of taxpayer money potentially goes down the silicon-lined drain.
I must say, however, we live in interesting times. I would love to hear what Dr. Hathaway has to say off the record.
It’s interesting that both Dikpati and Hathaway originally predicted a solar cycle 24 of near record magnitude. The difference between them was that Hathaway predicted a much earlier beginning and top. Dikpati had the opportunity to have her prediction be correct as late as September of last year. But we are now at least 6 month past that start point, and therefore at least half of her prediction is bound to be wrong. This is significant because we were told that Dikpati’s model had show 98% accuracy on historical data. It tells us that modeling the past and modeling the future are very different. To model the past you only have to tweak parameters until you get your desired fit. But you have no way of knowing that your tweaking gave you a better approximation of reality, or if it simply gave you a better fit for your historical data. One can imagine that a complex model can have multiple groups of tweaks that could all produce a good fit.
People do this in the investing game. They program different trading strategies into a computer and then run historical market data through those trading strategies. They tune their strategies until they get superb returns out of the historical data. But when they then turn and use those same trading strategies to invest in the market, they invariably fail. The important lesson here is that a curve fit is not really an exposing of reality – it is simply a curve fit.
I wonder if Dikpati now maintains her original prediction of the SS 24 magnitude.
Low Vapor Glow
Infinite Sadness
Becomes Ultimate Wisdom
Flow Nature’s Flow
Venerable Father
Deliver Us From This Darkness
Where’s Leif? This doesn’t look like a minor standard event at all.
The interesting thing about the 6% UV is that without even looking at curves this energy is absorbed completely. I work in optics and there are not many materials transparent to UV. This high energy light is coming in and staying.
This also could indicate a substantial cooling in the surface/subsurface layers of the sun. I can say that because the Plank black body spectral emission curve as determined by temp doesn’t need to shift much to create a shift in the high frequency UV output spectra.
Another great post. Thanks Anthony, I keep learning.
Sun fades in some way
Enter tragedy
Some where there’s some way
Like all you ever dreamed
Sun fading
Sun fading
Pearland Aggie (15:47:12) :
I made an estimate of the effect on US agricultural productivity in December that can be found on Icecap: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/fyingtheUSAgriculturalProductivityResponsetoSolarCycle24.doc
It is entitled “Quantifying the US Agricultural Productivity Response to Solar Cycle 24”. My estimate is that US agricultural production will decline 20%, taking it out of the export market. Most of this is caused by losing weeks at both ends of the growing season. Places like the Canadian wheatbelt will also be affected by unseasonal frosts.
The important thing is solar cycle length (Happy birthday Solar Cycle 23 – now thirteen years old this month). Friis-Christensen found a correlation between solar cycle amplitude and temperature, but a stronger correlation between solar cycle length and temperature over the following solar cycle. Butler and Johnson proved that for the individual station record of Armagh. I have also demonstrated it for the individual records of the CET, de Bilt and three US stations. There isn’t much scatter on the graphs. The coming cooling is inevitable.
By the way, I am amazed that I was able to do original research in this field considering that following up the Butler and Johnson paper would have been an easy way for any climate academic to boost his publication record.
Solar minimum is promoting poetry creation:
evanmjones´and, more humbly, me:
Round and round I go,
the barycenter longing to find and rest,
because the farthest I go
the more furious I become
changing Ninos into Ninas
prairies into barren fields
and climate prophets into farting cows
The Sun
Regarding all this unusual solar (in-)activity, is anyone else thinking of Robert A. Heinlein’s “The Year of the Jackpot” and getting a queasy feeling?
What’s this?
A WUWT Sunspot article… and no “A-Watt Affect” sunspots popping up like pesky whack-a-mole moles?
Sir, you’re credibility may be taking a hit 😉
REPLY: The article is less than 4 hours old, and I didn’t write it. The mojo is weak.- Anthony
Not a single mention by NASA’s “solar scientists” on the well established correlation between solar activity and climate.
Hathaway actually mentions that: “Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years.” But no comment on the possible climate effects.
Author Tony Phillips claims that: “These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming.” Fails to note that IPCC models only include irradiance effects of solar variability and omit solar magnetic effects, despite the well known correlation with climate. The implication: global warming that has actually been due to solar activity has been misattributed to CO2. With the sun going cold, we are going to get cold, and CO2 will hardly do anything to mitigate it.
How can these jerks call themselves solar scientists when they aren’t willing to stand up for solar effects, instead deferring to the IPCC on their own supposed field of expertise?
To cap it off, Hathaway’s prediction graph STILL has solar cycle 24 ramping up tomorrow. Even his colleagues ignore him, with Pesnell saying that sunspots counts will pick up, “possibly by the end of the year.”
hareynolds (14:11:33) :
As discussed, I am getting NO traction with this idea, but I keep repeating it if only for the Comedy of Repetition:
The Gore Minimum.
I applaud your proposal and I absolutely believe that Gore’s name should be attached to what might well become a sunspot anomaly that results significant, historic cooling. In an effort to assist in the “traction” department. I propose a solution to the legitimately expressed worries over “canonizing” the man in the process.
Name the solar minimum “The Gore Maximum”. That will lead future historians on every reference to the event to explain to freezing generations the source of that contradictory handle; “The ‘minimum’ was named the ‘maximum’ in sarcastic reference to a charlatan of the period who convinced large portions of the general population and highest circles in government of the preposterous proposition that a 1/4 inch, man made CO2 tail was wagging a 100-yard-long atmospheric dog. In defense of the general level of intelligence of the non-scientific population of that time it should be noted that large numbers of their scientific “experts” failed them in a rush of excitement, fame and fortune which attended the largest financial and political ‘honeypot issue’ to ever arrive on the scene in the entire history of mankind up to that time.”