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
Robert Bateman
April 2, 2009 1:52 am

The windstorms have returned to No. Calif. They ran on for months last year, and they’re back. They are also a lot colder. Perhaps for those who live near the tropics, there is no change.
Aside from farmers, most people are too urbanized and heavily dependent on the grid for thier winter heating. They are not perpared for severe cold like they were 100 yrs ago.
Thier clothing is likewise lacking. It’s just not in the memories of thier lifetimes.

April 2, 2009 2:15 am

This may be slightly off topic but it may be of interest to the nonconforming:
On another thread, I mentioned link between global temperature and anomalies within the solar activity.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/mgt.gif http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/CycleAnomalies.gif
It has been generally assumed that the temperature drop for the period 1950 – 1960 was due to the atmospheric nuclear testing. Test Ban Treaty, which banned nuclear tests in the atmosphere, came into force in 1963, resulting in a pick-up in the temperature rise, to be counteracted (in late 60’s ) by the solar activity anomaly, shown here:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/Anomalies.gif
resulting in a low SC20 (which unusually for the previous 60 years rising trend) followed strongest ever recorded SC19.
According to this truly “Deep Solar Minimum” should occur during 2020-2035 as anticipated here:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarField.gif
There is also periodicity to N/S asymmetry in the solar activity, I found that there is change in the asymmetry at the same time when the major solar anomalies occur, but records are not long enough to prove much.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/MaunderN-S-excess.gif
The anomalies may be controlled by orbital planetary resonances, which may generate impulses at specific times as defined by equation:
COS[2pi(t-1941)/118] + COS[2pi(t-1941)/96] = 0
resulting in the anomalies and change in the asymmetry within the solar cycles sequence and possibly linked to the global temperature trends.
(Dr. S -I know you will say there is no such thing!)
Two factors are rounded off: 118 = approx 4*S or 10*J ; 96 = approx J+U or even 8*J=94.9, whatever combination used, out of 4 possible, only significant change is the part of the Maunder minimum graph, but still very clearly identifiable. 118-96 = 22 years, one Hale cycle.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk

Perry Debell
April 2, 2009 2:24 am

Naming a predicted Solar Minimum after a failed presidential candidate smacks of “incognitive diffidence”. I went looking for a photograph to illustrate my contempt for the loathsome twerp and found one that immediately reminded me of the standard comedic putdown to drunk hecklers in British working mens’ clubs up north. ” Just because you’ve got hair around it, doesn’t mean you have to talk like a —-“.
http://algore2008.net/AlGoreBeard911.jpg
Apt, what?

PFC
April 2, 2009 2:50 am

“Gore does not deserve to have anything named after him. ”
Well, I could be fairly easily convinced to support something in the theme of “Ponzi scheme”….

Tiles
April 2, 2009 2:50 am

I agree Gore should not be honoured by appending his name to the forthcoming Solar Slump. What about calling it the ‘Inconvenient Minimum’?

David Archibald
April 2, 2009 3:00 am

Tim Groves (19:57:34) :
I did a print run of 2,000 in December and now I have about 100 left. To obtain a copy, I suggest you email me at david.archibald westnetc.om.au or use the contact form on my website at http://www.davidarchibald.info

April 2, 2009 3:30 am

On another thread, I mentioned link between global temperature and anomalies within the solar activity.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/mgt.gif http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/CycleAnomalies.gif
It has been generally assumed that the temperature drop for the period 1950 – 1960 was due to the atmospheric nuclear testing. Test Ban Treaty, which banned nuclear tests in the atmosphere, came into force in 1963, resulting in a pick-up in the temperature rise, to be counteracted (in late 60’s ) by the solar activity anomaly, shown here:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/Anomalies.gif
resulting in a low SC20 (which unusually for the previous 60 years rising trend) followed strongest ever recorded SC19.
According to this truly “Deep Solar Minimum” should occur during 2020-2035 as anticipated here:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarField.gif
There is also periodicity to N/S asymmetry in the solar activity, I found that there is change in the asymmetry at the same time when the major solar anomalies occur, but records are not long enough to prove much.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/MaunderN-S-excess.gif
The anomalies may be controlled by orbital planetary resonances, which may generate impulses at specific times as defined by equation:
COS[2pi(t-1941)/118] + COS[2pi(t-1941)/96] = 0
resulting in the anomalies and change in the asymmetry within the solar cycles sequence and possibly linked to the global temperature trends.
(Dr. S -I know you will say there is no such thing!)
Two factors are rounded off: 118 = approx 4*S or 10*J ; 96 = approx J+U or even 8*J=94.9, whatever combination used, out of 4 possible, only significant change is the part of the Maunder minimum graph, but still very clearly identifiable. 118-96 = 22 years, one Hale cycle.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk

Alan the Brit
April 2, 2009 3:31 am

Ladies & Gentlemen:-)
May suggest that this minimum, if indeed it is such a phenomena, be called the “Hansen Minimum”. This will enable historians many years from now to write about the “Hansen Minimum, which lead to the Gorey Little Ice Age that ravaged many communities world wide. Because, if it is a minimum of prolonged endurance, get the thermal underwear on as the Russian scientists are arguing.
As to whether sunspots cause changes in the climate, well, it is true to say that correlation does not equal causation, unless you are a AGW believer, but correspondingly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! We just haven’t found it yet in a tangible form other than correlaion. However, it is very clear that we know very little about our planet, the sun, the stars, & how they interact with each other on the grand scale of things. Mankind has made wonderful advances in science, knowledge, tools, ever since that ape picked up that stick & whacked that rock for a home run, but we are after all, just an intelligent ape, & advancement through science is still problematic for the witchhunters, who prevail through fear & ignorance.

Roger Knights
April 2, 2009 3:39 am

OT: Here’s a great title for an anti-Gore film:
“A Nobel Lie”

Editor
April 2, 2009 3:50 am

Mike Strong (20:59:27) :

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!

You have your units fouled up. Given a nearly constant Sun, there are 1,300 watts arriving over the course of a second. Or day, week, fortnight, month….
This confusion leads to:
Steve Burrows (21:05:28) :

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.

No, watts per year is watts divided by time. That’s not what he said. 1,300 watts over the course of a year is as you compute, but is a completely unnecessary calculation. I have a hair dryer that draws 1875 watts, I wouldn’t be able to run it full speed at any time, even when the sun is overhead, certainly not at night.

April 2, 2009 3:51 am

Leif Svalgaard (22:42:47) :
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 🙂 ]

Some months ago, I started single-handed campaign against Babcock-Leighton theory being adequate for fully understanding of what is going on with the solar cycles. The theory may be accurate as to some fraction (1/1000 per L. Svalgaard) of magnetic field drifting to the poles. However, this statistically is not sufficient to generate next SC max.
For doing so, I was nearly crucified by Dr. Svalgaard.
Fortunately, Geoff Sharp gave me a valiant support (and still does), there were one or two more tenuous signs of support.
The quoted statement by Dr. Svalgaard:
It looks to me that it is working just fine [at least my version of it 🙂 ]
I consider an important development in this matter.
We cannot have a more than one version of a major theory, which asserts itself as bases of the current solar science.
If Dr. Svalgaard has a version, which is different to the Hathaway-Dikpaty- etc, (which apparently is not working), I would hope he will publish (if he has not done already) his version so we may have something different to consider.

Marko Lauhiala
April 2, 2009 3:53 am

Maybe a lot of things are influencing the so called climate change no matter if it is getting colder or warmer (blame it on volcanoes or CO2). I think nobody has all the answers and I don’t think we will have them in many many years to come… but let’s not dismiss the fact that there is a HUGE ball of fire in the sky that just might have something to do with our lives down here.
Let’s concentrate on things we can do something about and will benefit all of us, like cleaner drinking water or getting rid of toxic waste in our soil or getting rid of toxic fumes… geez!
All I can say is that I have had enough of snow for this winter.

old construction worker
April 2, 2009 3:58 am

‘Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun’s brightness has 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.”
I’m surprised no one picked up on this.
‘the sun’s brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and a whopping 6% at extreme UV wavelengths’
‘Earth’s upper atmosphere is heated less by the sun and it is therefore less “puffed up.” ‘
Wasn’t part of the CO2 drives the climate theory state there should be a ‘Hot Spot” in the upper troposphere? Then the “goal post” changed to ‘the real evidence of CO2 Hot Spot was the atmosphere above the troposphere cooled’
Well, GHG Modelers you got it wrong again.

Dell Hunt, Michigan
April 2, 2009 4:00 am

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’m with you, however I would suggest making it more official sounding (Latin-esque).
Something like the AlGorian Solar Minimum
Or Perhaps the Algorian/Millivanillian Solar Minimum (Give back the award ’cause you are a fraud.)
;>P

April 2, 2009 4:05 am

David Archibald,
Thanks for all the information. It was your paper in 2007 that got me thinking of the potential implications of warming versus cooling and how cooling could be a much more difficult survival situation. We have to technology to cope with warming (irrigation, synthetic fertilizers, genetic engineering, etc.), but it’s quite difficult to ensure the continuation of society if the agricultural underpinnings of that society dissolve in a cooling world.
Thanks again for all the work and I sincerely and respectfully hope you’re wrong! The implications of correct predictions on your part are much more severe than the paltry warming we’ve experienced over the last century.

MikeP
April 2, 2009 4:16 am

How about reserving the name Gore for an annual award – given to the gravest abuse of science in any particular year? We could go back and start with an inaugural award for AIT. Any suggestions for the years since?

Roger Clague
April 2, 2009 4:17 am

It is history that will decide what changes in climate are called. I hope it gets to be called the Wattsupwiththat? Minimum.
Because of the role this blog will play in preparing for a much colder age. It will also promote scepticism and asking questions which is a vital quality needed to get us through such a period.
The reference to ‘market correction’ is criticism of prediction by curve fitting.
Hathaway has as much chance of predicting sunspots as bankers have of making predictions about money. Except, that is, when it is part of their pension.

Roger Knights
April 2, 2009 4:40 am

“The Inconvenient Minimum”

Steven Hill
April 2, 2009 4:43 am

NASA today……
If it not for global warming, we would all be freezing to death right now…..I can see it now.
NASA joins comedy channel

Jon H
April 2, 2009 4:50 am

“These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming,”
Correct, 1.4% less overall solar energy hitting the earth will not change the environment significantly. While this is the distal cause of the lower temperature, they are right there needs to be amplifying elements to this effect to give us noticeable changes in environment.
Has anyone in the AGW crowd researched the difference in a cloudy day compared to a day in direct sunlight?

pyromancer76
April 2, 2009 4:51 am

Robert Bateman, “So, how’s about a poll? Who should we name this Minimum after? Gore or Eddy?
No poll. Gore is out. Do not even mention his name in the same breath with any aspect of science. Even if the science is about deadly cold, he does not deserve that respect.

gary gulrud
April 2, 2009 5:01 am

“So they can understand and can predict Earth’s climate, but the Sun? Not so much. It’s a good thing the one doesn’t affect the other!”
Wish we could say it took real intellect beside the millions of our tax dollars to see this coming.
On the contrary, it took concerted ignorance and hubris to miss it.

April 2, 2009 5:07 am

“These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming, but…” stated by the same people who predicted the end of the solar minimum would be in 2006. And that was a *concensus* of solar experts.
I have a problem with the term “Gore Minimum”. It sounds too much like an honor than an insult. I favor those who would name it the Jose or Landschiedt Minimum, depending on who is more accurate, but ALSO refer to it as “The Gore Deficiency” or simply “Gore’s Deficiency”.

Sam bailey
April 2, 2009 5:16 am

First let me say I have learned so much from the dialogue on this page..
Most importantly, is the common and understood relationship that exists between suns behavior and our weather…I literally giggle my ass off when, and its often, I press AgW accolytes and Hierophants alike, on the issue the warming they are soooooo scared of.. comes from the sun… and can they explain to me if the sun isnt the reason, what is…. this usally results in a slap fight.

Sam bailey
April 2, 2009 5:20 am

would someone loan me a carbon credit or two to pay for the energy used to post my previous comment…?

1 4 5 6 7 8 12