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

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

300 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
crosspatch
April 1, 2009 7:02 pm

“These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming …”
That is pretty much standard “boilerplate” language that MUST get inserted into anything that shows a possibility of cooling so that the author/organization is not fired or lose their funding. So it is ok to say things have cooled a quarter of a degree the past 10 years as long as you insert the obligatory “These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming” in order to maintain your proper level of political correctness and funding. If you do not include it, you are labeled a “skeptic” and as a AGW heretic, you are excommunicated from the funding community.

Deanster
April 1, 2009 7:09 pm

Well … I read a good bit .. and noticed .. nobody brought up Landschiedt. He predicted this years ago.
Maybe the GODS at NASA may want to take a closer look at his methods and theories. There just may be some truth to them.

kurt
April 1, 2009 7:09 pm

A while back (something to the tune of a year ago) the depth of this solar minimum interested me quite a bit so I did some Internet research. At that time, the official “forecast” for solar cycle 24 was schizo – literally. They presented two mutually exclusive scenarios of what the cycle maximum would be and when it would occur. What struck me the most was that each forecast was based on a competing mathematical model constructed using past sunspot cycle information. I came away from the description of the models with the inference that each model fit well with the historical data, yet they yielded significantly different results. I also thought at the time that this was a perfect case study as to why you can’t infer the predictive capacity of climate models simply because you could mathematically fit them to the historical data that is used to construct the models.
Tweaking a model to fit past data may be a complicated mathematical exercise, but doing so does not require any actual knowledge of the underlying system. While what you think you know about the system may impede you in fitting the data if you refrain from adjusting parameters to be inconsistent with your starting assumptions, but you can’t conclude that the ability to fit the data while maintaining consistency with those assumptions validates the assumptions themselves. It just means that the model hasn’t falsified the set of assumptions, no more no less. It’s easily plausible that another set of radically different assumption could fit the data just as well, if not better.
Anyway, to complete the thought, in the hindsight of recent sunspot history I think both models boffed it. Imagine that.

savethesharks
April 1, 2009 7:18 pm

Agreed Alec.
Per this article, and the nervous, reactive, ostrich-head-in-sand tone, how much longer can some of these individuals be continued to be thought of as credible in the light of the current potentially serious situation we have on our hands?
It is astounding that, on top of all the other “bureaucraSPEAK” in this article, how does Dr. Phillips even have the gall to make the remark: “These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming.”
HUH? I’m sorry but how ******* stupid does he think we are??
Oh….right….some people are stupid enough to fall for such rhetoric.
In light of the magnitude of this situation, and the gravity of its potential impact on civilization, it is REPREHNSIBLE that such mildly-informative, but quasi-censored “journalism” would be allowed to come out of the world’s leading science organization [such as it is!].
[FIRE James Hansen!] Sorry…..Turretts Syndrome here. 😉
Chris
Norfolk, VA

Douglas DC
April 1, 2009 7:22 pm

As I sit in the middle of a winter storm warning in NE Oregon-I see a correlation here….

MattB
April 1, 2009 7:23 pm

Deanster (19:09:28) :
Well … I read a good bit .. and noticed .. nobody brought up Landschiedt. He predicted this years ago.
Maybe the GODS at NASA may want to take a closer look at his methods and theories. There just may be some truth to them.
Between Landschiedt, Svensmark, and Archibald, I have been recomending people get good winter coats because global warming is over.

savethesharks
April 1, 2009 7:27 pm

Kurt wrote: “I also thought at the time that this was a perfect case study as to why you can’t infer the predictive capacity of climate models simply because you could mathematically fit them to the historical data that is used to construct the models.”
Well said and thanks for your post….

savethesharks
April 1, 2009 7:31 pm

MattB wrote: “There just may be some truth to them.
Between Landschiedt, Svensmark, and Archibald, I have been recomending people get good winter coats because global warming is over.”

Agreed…these guys don’t get enough airtime that they should. Listen to what they have to say.
Chris
Norfolk, VA

MattB
April 1, 2009 7:33 pm

Another good paper I was turned onto by a poster on this site:
http://www.ann-geophys.net/18/399/2000/angeo-18-399-2000.pdf
Gives a further explanation on some of the stuff put forth by Landschiedt

Roddy Baird
April 1, 2009 7:34 pm

If I were a warmist and I read this stuff I’d say “ahah! This minimum is masking the warming and when it ends we’re toast!” I am very confident that this approach will deal with any inconvenient global cooling long enough for the warmists’ agenda to be realised… whatever that is in reality. The fact is that this minimum is bad news for skeptics as it supplies a decent argument for the lack of warming over the last decade – an argument that may even turn out to be right. Some people here forget the nobody understands the Earth’s climate well enough to be able to describe exactly how much “climate change” is the result of the increased levels of CO2 or how much climate change will result from increased levels of CO2. “They” believe CO2 is the primary driver of the global warming of the last century or so and we believe that it isn’t but nobody knows. Well, someone might, but they can’t demonstrate it to everyone’s satisfaction yet.

John F. Hultquist
April 1, 2009 7:39 pm

The problem I have with naming a solar cycle after Al Gore is, first, I think the term “Gorical” fits very well, does what you want, and is already out there on the Web. Adding a new title/concept to him will only dilute the Gorical thing. Second, there ought to be a relevant and descriptive name, although I have no candidates. Who gets to decide anyway? I guess you can decide on something, use it a lot, and see if it sticks.

Vinny
April 1, 2009 7:41 pm

And take away those ridiculous specks that barely lasted a day and the percentages go up even further.

len
April 1, 2009 7:46 pm

Paul Jose documented the 179 year cycle we are experiencing in his paper. Jose, Paul D. Sun’s Motion and Sunspots (1965)The Astronomical Journal, Vol. 70, Number 3, April 1965; P. 193-200)
Yes, that is 1965 folks. However Revelle had the anti-industrial theory to flog around the cocktail circuit. A theory that was proven incorrect by Niels Bohr at the turn of the century. A theory advanced by a mediocre mouth piece whom we should not name this phenomena after.
Then in 1999, Theodor Landscheidt with his love of cycles picked up on Paul Jose’s theme with the paper, Landscheidt, T. Extrema in Sunspot Cycle Linked to Sun’s motion. – Solar Physics 189, 413 – 424, 1999.
Later Lanscheidt proposed it was the Barycenter of the Solar System driving the variation, especially medium term, of the solar cycle. For this I agree that this should be called the Landscheidt Minimum.
Geoff Sharp shows with Landscheidt’s hypothesis and a calculation of the angular momentum the solar system places on the Sun that the Jose cycle is actually 172 years and can explain pretty well all the medium term variation including the warming in the late 20th century and the Little Ice Age during the Renaissance … and the Dalton Minimum in between. You can find his work at …
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2009/01/21/11000-year-c14-graph-lines-up-perfectly-with-angular-momentum-graph/
There are others like Archibald who use other techniques (statistical/historical) bypassing the Barcentric Tide Theory of the Solar System but for me that only solidifies the hypothesis. There are also those that concentrate on the gravitational effect of Jupiter alone and others who fine tune the effect including smaller objects to look at shorter term variation. I guess like many things, there were parallel lines of enquiry coming to the same conclusion … it’s the Sun and Planets Stupid.
My little piece which I hope to update soon after updating numerous times because of the recent advances in public knowledge can be found at …
http://www.itsonlysteam.com/articles/landscheidt_minimum_part2.html
When I’m not busy saving the world running a coal fired power plant, I will update with updated discussion on Solar Irradiance.

theBuckWheat
April 1, 2009 7:55 pm

For the sake of its impact with the non-scientific public, the name should be Gore Minimum. It should be a name that sticks like glue to those who pushed AGW when it really was an excuse to expand government, raise taxes and destroy liberty and choice. I would even suggest that such a PR opportunity only comes alone once in a lifetime. it is on the same order as Nixon saying he was not a crook.

Tim Groves
April 1, 2009 7:57 pm

David Archibald,
I’ve been trying to find a copy of your book Solar Cycle 24 and I was surprised to discover that it doesn’t seem to be available from Amazon. What’s the easiest way to pick up a copy?

Robert L
April 1, 2009 8:01 pm

JamesG (14:02:44) :
This jumps out at me:
“Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years”
That’s news to me. ie the same 50 years of unprecedented warming which is unequivocally due to ghg emissions according to the IPCC? I guess the signature is wrong. Then again, add a little aerosol cooling in the dips et voila.

I’ve been saying this for at least 10 years. In 1998, and the years leading up to it, we had some record setting aurora. So much so that we were seeing them in northern California (an extremely rare event), of course since then auroral activity has dwindled to nothing, as Solar Cycle 23 has ramped down, and cycle 24 is yet to show.
Correlation is not evidence of causation, but it certainly gives you a place to start looking.
cheers,
Robert

crosspatch
April 1, 2009 8:08 pm

“the name should be Gore Minimum.”
I disagree. What we should do is name the extremely active cycles as the Gore Maximum to point out that the warming he got everyone all excited about might be due to a series of very strong solar cycles.
Maybe we should call it The “DOH!” Minimum

Ray
April 1, 2009 8:16 pm

Apparently it takes about 10,000 to 170,000 years for the photons that are created at the center of the sun to reach the surface. So, what ever we are witnessing now happened a long time ago in the core.

April 1, 2009 8:28 pm

Can you folks check my arithmetic?:
Over the course of a year, the average solar radiation arriving at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere is roughly 1,300 watts per square meter. Does this equate to nearly 663,000,000,000,000 watts of energy, each year, per square meter? Can this influence climate more than a gas like CO2 that is .000366 (?) parts of the atmosphere? Or, after having a glass of wine, am I off by about 10 decimal points?

pwl
April 1, 2009 8:37 pm

But is it supposed to be this quiet?

It’s gonna blow! Run for the hills! 😉

April 1, 2009 8:37 pm

len (19:46:46) :
Paul Jose documented the 179 year cycle we are experiencing in his paper. Jose, Paul D. Sun’s Motion and Sunspots (1965)
We showed over in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/21/the-sun-double-blankety-blank-quiet/#comments
that the Sun’s angular momentum around the solar system barycenter is precisely balanced by the Planets’ angular momentum and that there is no spin-orbit coupling to make the Sun be influenced by its motion around the said barycenter. So, we can prune that branch off the decision tree.

pwl
April 1, 2009 8:39 pm

We’ll be the first humans to witness a nova up close and personal. Ok, couldn’t resist. 😉

April 1, 2009 8:40 pm

John F. Hultquist (19:39:56) :
The problem I have with naming a solar cycle after Al Gore…
1st, it is not certain that we’ll have a Grand minimum coming. If we do, I think the ‘Eddy’ minimum is more appropriate.

April 1, 2009 8:43 pm

Alec Rawls (18:40:16) :
Not a single mention by NASA’s “solar scientists” on the well established correlation between solar activity and climate.
There is no such ‘well established’ correlation. Careful analysis shows that any solar effect is small [less than 10% of the variation of the past century].

John Aiken
April 1, 2009 8:44 pm

If we continue to study the sun with more and more advanced astronomical instruments, the sunspot count with have a downward spiral trend count. In order to maintain a baseline count, we should also study the sun with the same instruments as the scientist used in circa 1900. That will allow a steady state comparison.