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

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
300 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Roger Knights
April 2, 2009 8:20 am

“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.”
According to their flawed surface stations (see Anthony’s threads on How Not to Measure Temperature), their adjustments to their records, and their failure to adjust for the UHI effect.

Llanfar
April 2, 2009 8:23 am


“1.4% less overall solar energy hitting the earth will not change the environment significantly.”
Why not? (open question)

Based on http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=21&page=32#15365 (h/t poitsplace), won’t a smaller cross section reduce the amount of energy the earth (including the atmosphere) receives from the sun?

Ray B
April 2, 2009 8:30 am

You guys are kind of on the right path with the Gore-Hansen Minimum name, but let’s give credit where credit is due.
I will suggest that we refer to the now waning Modern Maximum as the Gore-Hansen-IPCC Modern Maximum, after the AGW Chicken Little movement that they based on it. It will take their misdeeds into history and make it difficult to deny or spin away.
Give credit for the minimum to Landsheid, Eddy, or perhaps our host, Mr Watts, or at least someone on board with the sun vs AGW discussion.
Regards,
RJB

leebert
April 2, 2009 8:31 am

Alex:

BUT we cannot cry mini ice age yet!

That would be premature indeed.
First of all it took 2 successive solar grand minima (the Oort & Maunder) to show an impact on temperatures inland.
Jan Janssens’ spotless days evolution chart speaks volumes in trend analysis & I’m sure we’d all like to see the spotless evolution trends for SC 1 – 9 as comparison but I don’t know if there is sufficient data.
*IF* the stratosphere and upper troposphere are cooling (due to lower UV) *AND* cloud cover *is* greater than it would be otherwise (cosmic ray ionization) then the manifold effects from a longer slump in solar activities could be so pronounced as to offset actual global warming.
That alone doesn’t exculpate CO2. A grand minimum of 20 – 30 years might only offset what potential warming increased GHG levels may in fact pose. If the data can demonstrate the energy budget differences then we might be able to demonstrate the relative offsets against GHG-driven warming.
Some studies suggest the net decline in insolation/TSI comes to 0.01 degrC/decade. If that’s the current GHG signal then the sky’s not falling (melting). CO2’s not fully exculpated but there may be no looming catastrophe.

Texas Aggie
April 2, 2009 8:42 am

NoAstronomer:
Anyone feel free to correct this logic, but if 1.00 solar strength yields an average Earth temp of 287K, then a reduction to 0.986 solar strength could lead to a reduced temp of 283K. A drop of 4K on average would seem to be rather significant.
I am certainly no climate scientist, so have at it.

Jeff Alberts
April 2, 2009 8:51 am

evanmjones (22:49:27) :
I do that sometimes, but my MO in the solar threads is quoting rock lyrics.

Here’s one I haven’t seen that seems particularly apropos:
Brave Helios, wake up your steeds,
Bring the warmth the countryside needs

Or in the case of data obfuscation, and from the same lyrics:
Cold-hearted orb that rules the night,
Removes the colors from our sight,
Red is grey and yellow white,
But we decide which is right,
And which is an illusion.

anna v
April 2, 2009 9:00 am

While waiting for Leif’s response, you could study the UV map on the oceans( third or fourth plot in the link below)
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/UVB/uvb_radiation3.php
The subject came up with a recent paper that tied up plankton, UV, and plankton controlling clouds to avoid UV in some thread down stream.

April 2, 2009 9:12 am

Seeing the piano plot made by Pesnell, up to now, Marietta Maris is the “1st.runner up”:
Abstract. We analyse the solar cycle (SC) 23 behavior. We also make a comparison with some previous cycles and present a few aspects concerning the forecasts made for SC 23 maximum.
As regards the following cycle, in accordance to other early predictions, our empirical method, based on observing the are energy release during the descendant phase of the precedent SC, estimate that the amplitude of SC 24 will be low.

But, if Livingston and Penn are right then there will be a peak of..invisible spots

anna v
April 2, 2009 9:13 am

Re: Gore this or the other.
Is there anything scientific in biology named after Lysenko?

hotrod
April 2, 2009 9:20 am

PFC (02:50:28) :
“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”….

I agree, Gore should be associated with dishonest representation of faux science facts to further a political or economic agenda.
Perhaps the appropriate equivalent to “Ponzi Scheme” is the “Goracle hoax”.
A “Goracle hoax” would be defined by several features.
* It would be the intentional misrepresentation of fact to generate a large scale public perception of a false imminent threat to their well being.
* This threat is then used to manipulate the masses through the media to accomplish goals that would otherwise be impossible.
* signature features of a Goracle hoax would be:
The use of dishonest facts based on junk science, where the desired outcome drives the investigations, rather than honest scientific investigation.
Systematic use of grant funding awards to skew the science investigation to only support the intended result rather than to provide equal funding to all sides of the question.
Creating cult like authority figures (Gore Hansen) who push the agenda through a personal aura of authority, rather than skill or data.
Misuse of the peer review process to “freeze out” competing studies to the desired false threat, making it near impossible for sound science on the topic to publish in authoritative journals.
Refusal to debate the perceived threat on its merits, and using unfalsifiable assertions, or character assassination to suppress skeptical views of the desired threat.
I’m sure there are a few other features that would be applicable!
Gore and Hansen should go down in history as worst case examples of bad science not given eternal life in the name of an astronomical event.
Larry

Jeff Alberts
April 2, 2009 9:31 am

the bear (07:18:44) :
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?

About as much sense as “tackling climate change”, meaning, none at all.

April 2, 2009 9:41 am

Thanks Leif,
When I see the solar posts here I always look for your comments.

April 2, 2009 9:56 am

anna v: UV area surprinsingly follows the el Nino, la Nina trail! , from Nino 1,2 to 3,4 areas. Meaningful.

Dean Burgher
April 2, 2009 9:57 am

DUDE!…. Sol Min is soooooo pwning awg…..sweet!

Music Cures the World
April 2, 2009 10:20 am

Simple solution here, obviously.
Somebody ask Sting to sing King of Pain — “There’s a little black spot on the Sun today!”

April 2, 2009 10:25 am

Robert Bateman (08:10:45) :
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.
Mr. Bateman you are absolutely correct.
If the Sun disappeared, than the temperature on the Earth would be between minus 270 and -273 while now is about say +20 degrees Celsius, total difference 290 degrees.
If we assume simplest possible linear dependence, then 1.4% of 290 = 4.06degrees C.
According AGW experts 4 degrees C up is a disaster scenario, it could be equally disastrous if it goes down 4 degrees C.

Paul Vaughan
April 2, 2009 10:38 am

Leif Svalgaard (20:40:00)
“1st, it is not certain that we’ll have a Grand minimum coming. If we do, I think the ‘Eddy’ minimum is more appropriate.”

John Eddy deserves a higher honor than Leif suggests:
We should replace the term “Grand” with “Eddy” and speak of “Eddy Minima”.
The next Eddy Minimum will be known as “Landscheidt Minimum”.

tallbloke
April 2, 2009 10:39 am

Robert Bateman (08:17:50) :
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.

Let’s not forget Hathaway predicted solar cycle 25 to be very very low…

Paul Vaughan
April 2, 2009 10:55 am

G.R. Mead (06:22:54)
“[…] chaotic triad […]”

Can you point us to any publications that address this?
“What there is, though is a typical pattern of variation — with less typical patterns of excursion from those variations”
Well put.

Rik Gheysens
April 2, 2009 11:32 am

These features of the sun can be interesting:
1. Paul Stanko gave us a ranking of the spotless days: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/21/the-sun-double-blankety-blank-quiet/ . From his list, a take the following items:
“#10) Solar Cycle 12, 1878-1889, 1028 spotless days
#11) Solar Cycle 15, 1913-1923, 1019 spotless days
#12) Solar Cycle 14, 1901-1913, 938 spotless days
#13) Solar Cycle 13, 1889-1901, 736 spotless days
#14) Solar Cycle 10, 1856-1867, 647 spotless days
#15) Solar Cycle 1, 1755-1766, 638 spotless days
#16) Solar Cycle 24, 2009-20??, 580 spotless days”
The latest value for the number of spotless days, at the end of March 2009, (for SC24) was *585*.
So, if the sun remains quiet, within a few months we can rival the numbers of Solar Cycle 10, 13, 14, … (period of the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the twentieth century).
2. The lenght of the solar cycle
On “http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html” you can read:
“As can be seen, there is a big difference between solar cycles 10 to 15 and 16 to 23. The first group has a long delay (66 months) and many spotless days (almost 800 on the average), whereas the other group, containing the more recent cycles, has only 33 months between first spotless day and cycle minimum and not even half of the total number of spotless day of the first group (less than 400 days!). This makes a prediction for the start of SC24 very difficult. According to the second group, this minimum should occur late 2006 (March 2007 at the latest), but this has been excluded by the recent Wolfnumbers. On the other hand, if SC24 belongs in the category of the old cycles, then minimum would take place mid-2009 (March 2009 at the earliest). But then SC23 would have last over 13 years, making it one of the longest solar cycles over the last 250 years (SC04: 169 months). This still seems not very likely, in particular because SC24-groups have been outnumbering SC23-groups during the last few months.” (Last update, 2 January 2009)
I wonder when the new solar cycle would begin. If the sun remains in a quiet mood for some hundred days, then we can rival the situtation of more than 200 years ago. You know this was the time of the Dalton minimum.
Paul Stanko (21 March 2009):
“1) Solar Cycle 4 was 164 months long (13.67 years)
2) Solar Cycles 6 and 13 were tied at 157 months long (13.08 years)
3) Solar Cycle 9 was 150 months long (12.50 years)
4) Solar Cycle 23 is currently 145 months long (12.08 years)
5) Solar Cycle 5 was 144 months long (12.00 years)”
We are witnessing a very exciting period in history…

April 2, 2009 12:10 pm

the bear (07:18:44) :
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?

SC18, second strongest cycle of the 20th centaury was 1945-1955, and yet global temperature recorded largest fall over period of just few years, SC19 from 1955 to 1965 was strongest solar cycle ever recorded, and yet global temperature recorded only small rise, to be reversed as soon as cycle was over. Now, if global temperature is affected by solar activity, then period from 1945 to 1965 should have recorded steepest temperature rise of the 20th centaury.
It was precisely reverse, drop 1945-1955 was comparable to that one achieved during early 1900s when solar activity fell.
Why this would be? Upper atmosphere was loaded with radioactivity as result of the atmospheric nuclear tests, producing effect similar to that of cosmic rays (only recently explained by Svensmark). Atmospheric tests were banned in 1963.
We heard lot about ‘nuclear winter’, but no significant research was done at the time, possibly not politically suitable subject, in either of the two nuclear blocs.
We cannot have it both ways, if low solar activity causes global temperature to fall, we should know why global temperature was falling during most intense solar activity ever recorded.
Any climatologists on the blog?

Paul Vaughan
April 2, 2009 12:44 pm

vukcevic (12:10:46)
“Now, if global temperature is affected by solar activity, then period from 1945 to 1965 should have recorded steepest temperature rise of the 20th centaury.”

Is this what you really think?

April 2, 2009 1:07 pm

the way you presented this article as the data is telling us something negative and unexpected in relation to the past data we have. The thing is we only have somewhere about a hundred years of actual data to make assertions from so your just playing on peoples fears so they read your blog, the speculation you present as a case for the cause of our warming doesnt fit with the data that thirty years ago the bell curve that they presented our planets atmospheric conditions doesn’t fit with the bell curve that you just showed because it fluxuates more rapidly then the cycles of our atmosphere appears to. or thats just my understanding

April 2, 2009 1:09 pm

vukcevic:
“Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) demonstrated that the correlation between the northern hemisphere land surface air temperature and solar activity was markedly improved when the sunspot number was replaced by the length of the solar cycle as an index of the long-term variability of the Sun, and it was concluded that this parameter appears to be a possible indicator of long-term changes in the total energy output of the Sun”
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

April 2, 2009 1:10 pm

Paul Vaughan (12:44:08) :
vukcevic (12:10:46)
“Now, if global temperature is affected by solar activity, then period from 1945 to 1965 should have recorded steepest temperature rise of the 20th centaury.”
Is this what you really think?

No.
Hi Paul,
Answer is in the following sentences:
Upper atmosphere was loaded with radioactivity as result of the atmospheric nuclear tests, producing effect similar to that of cosmic rays (only recently explained by Svensmark). Atmospheric tests were banned in 1963.
However, It really isn’t important what I may o may not think, it is important what science has to say on this particular period, which I remember well, and the stories about forthcoming Ice Age.
I could not find any authoritative paper from either side of the argument on the mater.

1 6 7 8 9 10 12