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.


“This was noticed 5 years ago by the Max Planck Institute, and they went back 8000 years. Here’s the 2004 article from Aviation Week:”
How on Earth are they able to count the sun-spot number from 7300BC? i.e. before the start of recorded Human History?
Just throwing this out there. O/T but it is a question I have been mulling over. What role does the huge amount of nitrogen play in our atmosphere? If this has been discussed, I missed the thread, apologies.
“Speaking of global warming–and this is a completely unrelated aside–just how much warmer are we these days?”
If you ask the folks at NASA or NOAA, 2009 is shaping up to be in the top 10 warmest years since records were kept.
Hi Leif,
So the UV bands have eased somewhat resulting in a thinner stratosphere. Would it be safe to assume this means the stratosphere is also cooler as a result?
Just a reminder I’ve deferred to your research on the relative constancy of UV in normal cycles but this does seem to raise the question in my mind whether Drew Shindell’s research on UV-heating driving the Little Ice Age should be discounted after all.
Just a refresher for the rest of the gang, Shindell’s 2001 studies examined whether declines in UV-C & UV-B would result in a cooling of the upper troposphere (interestingly Gavid Schmidt coauthored one of the papers) resulting in the inland effects typified by the Little Ice Age (LIA).
My point being that what we’re seeing is not typical and entails an additional effect that could use more study. I’m going to claim agnosticism on the real effect of current UV heating of the stratosphere, just raising the point for discussion.
Another thought occurred to me that there could be some unforeseen synergies resulting from sufficient changes in UV and cosmic ray ionization. UV heating declines, additional cosmic ray-driven rain cloud nuclei increase, larger net decrease in global temperatures perhaps even better explaining the LIA.
The influence on long-term cosmic ray flux can’t be fully discounted, even critics of the theory who don’t see an effect during solar cycles concede that there would be an effect, just not a dominant one (Terry Sloan of U. of Lancaster relegates max CRF role to 23% of cloud cover flux during regular SC’s). http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/opinion/33642
I believe Roy Spencer has commented that even a marginal difference in cloud cover (5% or less) would have a notable impact on climate (sorry, I lack a cite for that… anyone?).
FYI for other readers:
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/stories/iceage_20011207/index.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/12/011210164606.htm
Note that Shindell’s co-author is Gavin Schmidt… 🙂
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/294/5549/2149
Leif Svalgaard has NOT been able to refute the oberservational evidence for
for a spin-orbit coupling between the Sun’s orbital motion around the Solar System’s Barycentre and Sun’s equatorial rotational motion.
Just sayimg something is true without actualy backing it up with supporting evidence does not make it true.
The observational evidence is available for all to see in figure 8 on page 90
(6th of 9 pages) of our paper at:
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=AS06018.pdf
Simply dismissing the diagram because you don’t trust the measured velocities
does not cut in the scientific world. You must show why these measurements
are wrong. The data is freely available to anyone who wants to look at along with the best estimates of the errors involved.
It is bad science to dismiss clear observational evidence simply because
you don’t like what it is telling you.
Typo alert, my bad: In my prior post:
“…Drew Shindell’s research on UV-heating driving…”
should read
“…Drew Shindell’s research on a decrease in UV-heating…”
I favor the “Landschiedt Minimum”.
And, for infamy, the “Hansen-Gore Hysteria”. Or the “Hansen-Gore Scheme”.
has anyone see any data on the practical implications of such an event?
millions will starve
Vukcevic: Perhaps you know what Ivanka Charvatova says:
“The results indicate that `solar dynamo’ that was long sought in the solar
interior, operates more likely from the outside, by means of the varying planetary configurations. As has been shown in Charvatova (1995a, b, c, 1997a), the solar motion could aid predictions also for terrestrial phenomena including climate.”
ked (00:32:53) :
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.)
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 testing 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.vukcevic.co.uk/mgt.gif http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/CycleAnomalies.gif
Many have made comments on the statement that this does not effect global warming.
I have an uncle that works for NASA. He has mentioned to me that authors have diffuculty getting papers published and grants awarded if they don’t state somewhere in the subject or their mission how it relates to man made climate change. This is the agenda they want to continue to promote and won’t fund it otherwise.
“1.4% less overall solar energy hitting the earth will not change the environment significantly.”
Why not? (open question)
Claude Harvey @15:47:35
The same thing seems to be going on at NOAA. There was a “reanalysis” report released in December last, but only just made newspaper headlines today. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1453831&p=2
Dr. Svalgaard,
Can you confirm the reduction of 6% in extreme UV light which has been mentioned on this thread? Can anyone advise on what UV light hitting the top layer of the ocean does, or does less of, in this case?
It has been generally assumed that the temperature drop for the period 1950 -1960 was due to the atmospheric nuclear testing.
Which begs the question, if the human race is truly in danger due to AWG. Wouldn’t firing off a nuke to save humanity make sense?
Hmmm…
Let’s not get too excited yet, yes the sun is blank but look at how many plagues have been popping up (esp a recent large one), activity is on the ramp up it seems.
BUT we cannot cry mini ice age yet! I disagree with certain people’s conclusions that the sun is irrelevant in the equation, of course it is, but due to the complexity of the system can we really say that there will be a Dalton minimum???
It sounds very exciting but we must be careful to not let it escalate into sceptics’ hype or else if nothing happens by 2030 then we (the sceptics) will also have egg on our faces, …
‘You must be cautious of the enemy, but even more cautious of yourself.’…
So let’s wait a year or so, and I think that in March 2010 WUWT should post an article describing whether the Archibald predictions have come true and perhaps remind the readers of what was predicted on both sides!
***** Also note how the back of the sun always seems to be bursting with flares and energy but when they rotate into view there are only plagues!!! It is almost as if nature is teasing Earth!!! Or perhaps the sun is SOHO camera shy O_o
hareynolds: How can you suggest to name the next minimum with such a repulsive word?
gore: blood, bloodshed,butchery, carnage, slaughter
There is a lovely reference in an old dictionary (because I’m old) about Dickensian characters, Spenlow & Jorkins, the hard dealings of one partner (Spenlow) blamed on the kinder honest partner (Jorkins). We could see the birth of a new phrase to describe hoodwinking, falsifying evidence, blatant distortion of the truth, up to & including down right lying, it could be called to “Hansen”, or to “Gore”, or even one could say, ‘that sounds like a touch of “Hansen-Gore” to me!’, when they hear something incredulous &/or of dubious accuracy? Worth a try folks!
Marko Lauhiala:
“All I can say is that I have had enough of snow for this winter.”
You have to wait until the first full moon of the spring equinox
Adolfo Giurfa (06:28:50) :
Vukcevic: Perhaps you know what Ivanka Charvatova says..
Yes I have red some of her papers, the most resent
The prominent 1.6-year periodicity in solar motion due to the inner planets
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/31/83/28/PDF/angeo-25-1227-2007.pdf
I looked into the Earth’s effect (more or less at the same time):
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/28/98/80/PDF/Hypothesis.pdf
I hope it was reciprocated, if not Ms. Charvatova herself, than someone else from Geophysical institute (Prague) ISP, visited my website on number of occasions.
It appears that planets’ have an effect, it is only question of the mechanism involved. I as an electronic engineer believe in a form of electro-magnetic feedback or resonance, while of course may be also gravitational, tidal, angular momentum, torque or other mechanical effects involved.
Sorry Adolfo
That should be:
Yes I have red some of her papers, most recent:
The prominent 1.6-year periodicity in solar motion due to the inner planets
How about a decrease of 1.4% in solar energy and increased volcanic activity accounting for the decreased temperatures globally.
NoAstronomer (06:50:11) :
“1.4% less overall solar energy hitting the earth will not change the environment significantly.”
Why not? (open question)
Go find an eclipse of the Sun in the Fall , and make sure you bring your digital thermometer and take copious readings. Take readings the day before and the day after also.
On the face of it, I agree we really don’t know if this is going to turn out like a short lived 1911-13 event, a Dalton or a Maunder.
On the other hand, there is no real effort to try and figure it out prior to events catching up with us, where it counts.
Politics has it’s ear captured by a polyscience movement that ensures that if the worst case were happening, nothing would ever get done to prepare.
The attitude in the article treats all Grand Solar Minimum as if they were a spiffy Sci-Fi movie to take the kids to see.
Alligator Petting Zoo.