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
April 1, 2009 8:46 pm

Jeff Id (17:55:56) :
Where’s Leif? This doesn’t look like a minor standard event at all.
Traveling. I have a day-job too.

Graeme Rodaughan
April 1, 2009 8:53 pm

James Allison (16:24:22) :

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.

But but but …. didn’t he just they can’t predict? Science can be so damned confusing to a layperson….

James – isn’t the solution obvious. They need to hire some of the many expert Climate Modellers around, then they will be able to accurately predict the Suns behaviour out to 2100.
After all, the Sun can’t be more complex than the Earth’s Atmosphere.

Keith Minto
April 1, 2009 8:54 pm

“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.””…Alec Rawls 18.40.16
Yes ,that bothers me too.
That 23 min is scrapping along the bottom in time and demolishing that Bell,pushing the ‘uplift’ of 24 steeper and steeper.
It’s the distortion you get trying to get the real numbers to fit a prediction.

April 1, 2009 8:59 pm

Pearland Aggie (15:07:58) :
one thing that seems to be lost in the TSI discussion…it looks like the baseline for this minimum is lower than the previous two by a fair amount. interesting….
that is most likely due to a drift of the instrument and is probably not for real.
MDR (16:28:57) :
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).
And it is not at all a surprise. Back in 2004 we predicted tht the coming cycle 24 would be the smallest in a 100 years: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
including that the solar wind magnetic field would be low: “the interplanetary magnetic fields that the Ulysses space probe will measure during its next polar passes in 2007–2008 are therefore expected to be significantly lower than during the 1994–1995 polar passes”
So we have been there before and solar physicists are not completely in the dark when it comes to predictions based on solid physics.
Tilo Reber (17:49:42) :
It’s interesting that both Dikpati and Hathaway originally predicted a solar cycle 24 of near record magnitude. […]
I wonder if Dikpati now maintains her original prediction of the SS 24 magnitude.

As far as I know, she does.

April 1, 2009 8:59 pm

My continued debate with ClimateProgess.org…who influences the Congress in testimonies presented her as “free use” copyright.
You may want to snip this Anthony, et al:
—–Original Message—–
From: mikestrong@XXXXXXX .com
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 05:03 PM
To: ‘Joe Romm’ (Climateprogress.org)
Subject: You win! Uncle! Ouch!
Joe,
It has been fun in the exchanges with you. You think you are correct and I think I am correct [about AGW]. And my car looks better than your car. My house is built better than your house. I can prove it!
I don’t know what “type” I am [skeptic versus liberal]. I think I mentioned before…I will still continue to drive a small car. I believe in recycling as I do it like a religion, with my kids. My entire house has CFL lighting. I hate Rush Limbaugh and never watch FOX news. I had no respect for Bush as President and I voted for Obama. I am a liberal of the first order…except when it comes to the IPCC, Hansen and the fear mongering Al Gore who makes money off of it. So what “type” am I ?
I just happen to believe that what is going on is pure Mother Nature and not unlike the cycles in the last the last millennium including the little ice age and the warm periods in the 400s. And I do believe solar influence is a thousand times more the cause of these cycles than CO2 or other gases and climate change is not AWG-induced, even if it is happening. I got sun-burned the other day from snow skiing but no ill effects I could detect from the CO2 I was exhaling when breathing hard. 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. Wow! Do you really think that nearly 663,000,000,000,000 watts of energy of the sun each year is not the most significant influence on climate here versus a gas like CO2 that is .000366 parts of the atmosphere? Hmmm. Yep, I am a believer in the solar cycle (sun spot) argument for climate influence.
um…just for fun, can I send you $100 bucks as a bet, and assuming I make it (stay alive) for five years…can we see what the “consensus” of the IPCC, the politicians and Gore is, in say, the year 2014.
One thing that our jousting the past few days has taught me is that we both seem to be very tenacious.
And, as I mentioned earlier, there are so many, many messed up things in the world and people starving and dying, right now, today from all sorts of things, that AWG just seems so minor compared to the millions killed in Cambodia after the Vietnam war, all the dying folks in Africa, right now, etc.
Let’s all move to higher ground when New York and Disneyworld are under water!
Mike

savethesharks
April 1, 2009 8:59 pm

Ien wrote: “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.”
Thanks for that post. Very informative.
Leif wrote: Leif Svalgaard (20:46:07) :
Jeff Id (17:55:56) :
“Where’s Leif? This doesn’t look like a minor standard event at all.
Traveling. I have a day-job too.”

Was wondering where you were Dr. S. Glad you had a safe trip. Precious cargo.
Chris
Norfolk, VA

Barry
April 1, 2009 9:03 pm

Hoi Polloi (13:25:09) :
“The sun might be flaming out?”
I have pondered the same thoughts. But we’ve had ice ages before so maybe just another phase in the cycle.

Steve Burrows
April 1, 2009 9:05 pm

Mike Strong (20:28:30)
1300 watts per year is 1300 watt-years, or 365*24= 8760 hours x 1.3
= 11,388 Kilowatt Hours. You could run your hair dryer continuously on this kind of power.

John F. Hultquist
April 1, 2009 9:08 pm

Leif Svalgaard (20:40:00) : “Eddy Minimum”
I knew there was a good name out there – just not what it would be.
Good idea. I suggest we start using this.
“Eddy Minimum” “Eddy Minimum” “Eddy Minimum”

April 1, 2009 9:13 pm

Unfortunately for some the Babcock-Leighton model is just not working. It time to pack it away and start afresh or seriously try to find the real driver involved and incorporate it into the dynamo. This ad hock “have a basketful of options” ready to suit any future outcome is not good enough.

April 1, 2009 9:16 pm

I don’t care what people call the approaching grand minimum, I will always refer to it as the “Jose Minimum”.

John F. Hultquist
April 1, 2009 9:21 pm

Case for the “Eddy Minimum”
The Maunder Minimum
John A. Eddy
Science 18 June 1976:
Vol. 192. no. 4245, pp. 1189 – 1202
DOI: 10.1126/science.192.4245.1189
I do not have access to Science articles but it is on-line for those who do. A picture of the cover is shown here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol192/issue4245/index.dtl
With this description: Danish astronomer Olaus Röaut;mer sweeps the sky with a meridian telescope in 1689, in the middle of a 70-year span of anomalous solar behavior.

Robert Bateman
April 1, 2009 9:25 pm

So Hathaway says that the last 50 years have seen higher cycles. But if you look at the graph they have in thier story, cycle 3 rivals cycle 19.
What is unusual is the nature of these spots. Fading, specks, etc.
The spots that we do see are pathetic.
Even more strange and a bigger story to grab public attention are the pictograms that are appearing daily in the MDI Magnetograms.
If you really want to stir things up, get that on the news.
I absolutely guarantee 100% talk of the town.
The other day we had Pi.
Today we have a heiroglyph of a ship on the Nile.
Handwriting on the Sun.
Take it away, Anthony. Stir it for all it’s worth.

Robert Bateman
April 1, 2009 9:31 pm

For now, it’s the Eddy Deep Solar Minimum.
It just keeps on doing things that defy.
pwl (20:37:05) :
But is it supposed to be this quiet?
It’s gonna blow! Run for the hills! 😉

Perhaps we now have a clue as to why the Cave Men were in the caves.
It wasn’t exactly a picnic outside.

Peter Jones
April 1, 2009 9:36 pm

Yes, I couldn’t agree more. It should definitely be the GORE minimum. It will be a direct tie to how badly science can fail when dictated by policy makers and driven by consensus. The non-scientific community will have a difficult time viewing scientists with more respect than our financial experts of today.

savethesharks
April 1, 2009 9:52 pm

But the minimum nomenclature ultimately bearing whosever name should give credit to the one that best predicted it: Jose or Landschiedt.
Gore’s name does not deserve any airtime.
Except…maybe in the term “Global Goring”

Robert Bateman
April 1, 2009 10:01 pm

Eddy spent a long time seeking out the proof that the Maunder and Dalton Minimums didn’t happen, but ended up concluding that they did.
Gore has simply been spoon fed by Mr. Ice Age is Coming of the 70’s who has found something new to scare folks with.
Mr. Gore has his effect and his Prize, and that’s all he’s going to get.
So, how’s about a poll?
Who should we name this Minimum after?
Gore or Eddy?

pkatt
April 1, 2009 10:15 pm

No it should not be called the Gore Minimum! It should be named after real scientists who didnt let global warming guide their research results. It should be given a name of a credible scientist, I know there are still some out there. Eddy sounds fine to me.. but do not inflate that .. bleep.. by using his name on an event that may or may not go down in history and be taught to our children. It is better that when they view his movie it will be treated with the same respect as reefer madness and other scare movies.

April 1, 2009 10:42 pm

Geoff Sharp (21:13:08) :
Unfortunately for some the Babcock-Leighton model is just not working.
Based on what? It looks to me that it is working just fine [at least my version of it 🙂 ]

Evan Jones
Editor
April 1, 2009 10:49 pm

Solar minimum is promoting poetry creation:
evanmjones´and, more humbly, me:

I do that sometimes, but my MO in the solar threads is quoting rock lyrics.

Fluffy Clouds (Tim L)
April 1, 2009 11:00 pm

Pearland Aggie (15:47:12) :
A serious question for all the smart folks out there….assuming the Archibald prediction or some variant of 2.2C cooling happens, has anyone see any data on the practical implications of such an event? I mean, will we still need our air conditioners here in Houston in August and should we expect ice every winter? I’ve never seen a prediction of how such cooling might affect, say for the sake of argument, the continental U.S.
for farmers it is a chilling tail for sure!!!!!
There is a disconnect between going to the store and buying food and the one in the dirt growing it, then the ones preparing it and then shelving the boxes and cans to be bought .
God help us all.

anna v
April 1, 2009 11:11 pm

Ray (20:16:34) :
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.
True, for photons coming out of the core.
So, what ever we are witnessing now happened a long time ago in the core.
Wrong. We are seeing the convective part of the sun top layers. There is more to the sun than the core.
Photons from the center of the earth take an equally huge time to reach the surface. What we see at the surface has little to do with that.
It is not like the heavenly sphere, where we now see what has been happening with the stars light years ago. The difference is there is mostly empty space up to our heavenly sphere projection.

mark
April 2, 2009 12:23 am

Hi their from New Zealand . The month of March here was one of the sunest on record , but the a.v.g air temps were down 0.6c on a.v.g. All that sunshine and we not getting the heat.

ked
April 2, 2009 12:32 am

Speaking of global warming–and this is a completely unrelated aside–just how much warmer are we these days?
~~~~~~~~~
In Seattle, March was was colder than February. It was also the coldest March since 1976. But of course, that’s “just weather”. (the same weather that prompted cries of a new ice age 30 years ago.)

ked
April 2, 2009 1:22 am

Roddy Baird (19:34:41) :
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
~~~~~
The hole in that theory is the public has the attention span of a toddler. Gore, Hansen and their cronies will still be crying AGW, but their audience will have moved on – to looking for ways to stay warm and fed.

1 3 4 5 6 7 12