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.


Readers may find this interesting and helpful, if they have not been there already —
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/glory_irradiance.html
Natural mechanism for medieval warming discovered
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16892-natural-mechanism-for-medieval-warming-discovered.html
I have no comment.
Adolfo Giurfa (13:09:07) :
“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
I’ve seen the paper and lot of charts inspired by it or a similar work. However there is one problem, SC4 was longest ever recorded, and yet it was cold at 1800. Similarly SC23 appears to be long, but all indications are that since 1995 temperature is steady or even falling. I think what may count is integral of the cycle curve (actual active area, data available only since 1860s on this, rather than SSN).
vukcevic (13:17:13) :
Natural mechanism for medieval warming discovered
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16892-natural-mechanism-for-medieval-warming-discovered.html
Look at the graph and remove Mann’s Hockey Stick then you will see temperature difference equals ZERO degrees.
You surely have an opinion.
Just received from Timo Niroma (who may be known to some of you interested in the solar maters):
I have many times thought that the nuclear tests would be a good explanation for the cooling just when the Sun was at its greatest maximum. US began in 1945, Soviet Union 1949, soon with hydrogen bombs. The greatest blast ever was detonated by Soviet Union in 1960 in Novaja Zemlja (50 Megatons!). The agreement to stop the nuclear tests in atmosphere were really agreed in 1963. I have nowhere seen any study of the huge nuclear blankett containing much dust and other particles over Earth that must have existed. It could have acted as a cooling blankett many times the greatest volcano explosions.
“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”
If solar variations coupled with the dynamic response of the Earth’s climate system to those input changes can completely countertact the warming influence of CO2 on today’s climate, what does that say about the contention made several years ago that the warming signal of carbon dioxide had become “clearly distinguishable” over natural climate fluctuations, and that the warming seen from 1980 – 1998 was “dominated” by the human influence of CO2? If nature can produce a cooling trend from 1998 – 2008 in the face of all that accumulated CO2, then nature could plausibly be responsible for most if not all of the warming seen in the past. Stated differently, how can you say that CO2 dominated natural variations in decades 1 and 2 and then see in the next decade 3 that nature dominated CO2 in the face of even further emissions?
Pesnell says..
These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming, but there are some other, noticeable side-effects:
Hansen says..
“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.”
Since 20th century warming seems to coincide best with the past 50 years, Is Hansen making a statement in between official AGW funding lines ?
Maybe deep down he does believe in the ARCHIBALD ideology despite the NOAA models not including any historical sunspot forcings.
And ,as Gavin Schmidt would know, “Real Climate” can’t be based on an unproven theoretical model with only CO2 as the main forcing driver, can it ?
vukcevic (13:54:47) :
Dont forget Vuk we also had a PDO shift to cool phase occurring in the 40’s.
The hockey stick graph [click] that New Scientist put in their article would certainly lead the general public to believe that temperatures now are higher than ever.
But notice the New Scientist fine print on their graph: “Departures in temperature from the 1961 – 1990 average”. Departures are anomalies; they are not a record of the temperature. Yet they state that temperatures may be higher now than ever before. [When is “now”? Is it now? Or is it in 1990?]
In other words, New Scientist picked the warmest time frame, and then they only showed anomalies — not actual temps. They conclude from a chart of anomalies something that is nowhere to be found in either the chart or the article.
The New Scientist article then states: “The finding scuppers one of the favourite arguments of climate-change deniers.”
New Scientist concludes with a supporting statement by none other than the internationally discredited climate fraud, Michael Mann — fabricator of the original fake hockey stick chart.
If New Scientist had ended its graph in 2008 — instead of eighteen years earlier — the result would have been completely different. It would have shown that there has been substantial cooling.
If New Scientist had used actual temperatures instead of [un-cited] anomalies, in a chart that ends in 1990 instead of 2008, the cooling of the climate over most of the past decade would have been obvious, since current temperatures are at about 1980 levels.
And if New Scientist had used a credible scientist, instead of that perpetrator of climate fraud, Michael Mann, then their own credibility would not have taken another well deserved hit.
Has New Scientist hired Dan Rather to write its articles now??
Have you wonder why these stories of global warming, end of the world phantasies, people taken away by extraterrestrial spaceships, not mentioning some tragic events related to illuminated leaders have originated in the supposed more developed societies?
What societies are the more developed?, first world societies?…Come on!
If you have so many “demi-gods”, we, the under developed ones, can not do but politely smile and walk away, praying god you keep your demi-gods, prophets, and all illuminated leaders well saved in and don´t try to export them to us. 🙂
Interesting to note on the New Scientist website that another of their lead stories is that Masturbation helps reduce Hay Fever. Who would have thought it? The New Scientist article on the medieval warm period seemed very thin on any actual evidence.
Look at this monthly global mean temperature graph and you will understand why those who want to scare you use the anomaly graphs, appropriately scaled of course…
http://junkscience.com/GMT/NCDC_absolute.gif
Not really that scary, is it?
What is even scarier are the strange figures that keep appearing in the MDI Magnetograms. Just wait until an apparition of the Virgin Mary appears in one of them, Adolfo. The demi-gods and the doomsayers will be swept away in the ensuing flood. Now, that’s what I call a real export.
Is Hansen making a statement in between official AGW funding lines ?
This isn’t the first scare ’em half to death crusade by Hansen. He’s got himself wide open to ruinous flip-flopping.
vukcevic (10:25:22) :
“1.4% less overall solar energy hitting the earth will not change the environment significantly.”
If the solar energy changed 1.4% the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere would change 1.4/4=0.35% of 288 degrees or 1 degree. The reason for the division by 4 is Stefan-Boltzman’s law.
“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.” Pearland Aggie
Yes and not only do we have the “cow tax” to fight, rfid tags on animals (NAIS) and plants but Rosa Delauno wants to saddle us with red tape and $1,000,000/day fines if Monsanto’s lawyer Mike Taylor wants to steal our farm for the new greenways/conservation land authorized in the Omnibus bill. Don’t bother to try and grow your own food, home gardens are NOT exclude. Have the polititians gone insane???
Even the liberals are scream about this.
I’m not a scientist and I don’t play one on TV, a la Hansen et. al., but I did read recently about the Earth’s magnetic field weakening, with speculation about a reversal of field polarity in the near future (geologically speaking, 10-100K years)? How does that figure into a solar minima with respect to Earth’s climate? Has it ever happened before (Earth’s magnetic field essentially flipping while a solar minima is underway)? Or could the solar minima be part of the cause of the weakening of the field?
Based on what I’ve read, a weakening magnetic field combined with weakened solar wind would result in increased cosmic rays above a solar minimum or weakened field alone, wouldn’t it? And that would mean enhanced cooling via increased cloud cover…or sufficient cosmic radiation to cause a major extinction event, in the most extreme…maybe the Maya knew something we don’t.
It seems these events could combine to create enhanced climatic effects, at the very least…curious about the thoughts on this from the excellent minds here.
Leif Svalgaard (19:57:49) :
vukcevic (10:25:22) :
“1.4% less overall solar energy hitting the earth will not change the environment significantly.”
If the solar energy changed 1.4% the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere would change 1.4/4=0.35% of 288 degrees or 1 degree. The reason for the division by 4 is Stefan-Boltzman’s law.
1 degree. That’s more than 100 years worth of global warming isn’t it?
Would the figure given for the effect of the Stefan-Boltzman law be affected by the contraction of th atmosphere said to have taken place Leif?
Can anyone point me to some recent literature that is representative of the “solar science consensus view” on sunspot area N-S asymmetry? If so, thanks.
Leif Svalgaard (19:57:49) :
vukcevic (10:25:22) :
If the solar energy changed 1.4% the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere would change 1.4/4=0.35% of 288 degrees or 1 degree. The reason for the division by 4 is Stefan-Boltzman’s law.
Thermodynamics was never my forte, vaguely remember something 100 degree K approx 6W/m2, I am certain you are correct, but even 1 degree K could be a severe reversal.
What is more important: How do you interpret sudden reversal at 1945.
Adolfo Giurfa (13:51:41)
Look at the graph and remove Mann’s Hockey Stick then you will see temperature difference equals ZERO degrees.
You surely have an opinion.
I only skimmed trough the article, I do not understand all driving mechanics, so best is not to forward uncertain views.
As far as graph is concerned, that is different matter, it has been taken out from publication:
Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years
Published by NRC, which you can find here,
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NRCreport.pdf
It is a voluminous discussion, with individual interpretations for all reconstruction methods. You may not take all for granted, it is a useful reading, regardless on which side of the argument you happen to be on.
So lets think this through, back in 2007 we had this presentation
solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/presentations/20070216_NSSTC.ppt in it, there is a prediction of a very small cycle 25, now this was produced by Hathaway. there are come really interesting points in it, perhaps the “political constraints” of AGW meant that the prediction for Cycle 24 was offset by a cycle to 25. I’m not defending Hathaway, as his predictions have been proved wrong, but note in the presentation the implicit criticisms of the Dikpati method.
Quote
They used our data – which was 20% high for cycle 20.
Their prediction for the actual size of cycle 20 was good but later cycles were also predicted accurately in spite of the error in the input data.
They kept the meridional flow speed constant.
They allow it to change in cycle 23 and find a 10% change in the prediction. Similar variations in meridional flow speed should have occurred in the past.
The latitudes at which they introduced the sunspot magnetic fields were not representative of the actual latitudes.
They had sunspots start the cycle at 35° and drift linearly to 5° over exactly 11 years. A far better representation is a parabolic trajectory from 25° down to 8°.
So, get your winter woolies out, you’ll need them
Paul Vaughan (23:42:27) :
Can anyone point me to some recent literature that is representative of the “solar science consensus view” on sunspot area N-S asymmetry? If so, thanks.
I’m not sure there is a ‘consensus view’ on it. Leif told me no-one has ever been able to make much sense of it a year or so back, and there seem to be as many opinions as papers about it. You have seen the correlation I’ve discovered. I took note of your comment on the other thread about the matter, but I’m unsure how you used logarithms to get a high correlation N-S difference and overall sunspot area. I found there is still a visually obvious correlation between solar displacement in the z axis and absolute difference in hemispheric sunspot distribution without including overall sunspot area, though it’s R value will be low.
tallbloke (22:31:22) :
“1.4% less overall solar energy
1 degree. That’s more than 100 years worth of global warming isn’t it?
Except that the 1.4% just came in from nowhere. The Sun’s output has not changed 1.4%, but less than 0.05% over a century…
“Wasn’t it around about 1913 when the early 20th century warming began.”
The Waldemeier Effect observes that late-rising solar cycles are weak. Not a ‘physical’ observation but statistical. Not a guarantee without exception but more reliable that the above conjecture which depends on solar behavior being random.
But this is sensible only as random with regard to our expectation, not to prior solar behavior and therefore contrary to the fundamental assumption of all physical models.
Of the ‘physical’ modelers only Badalyan, predicting Rmax of 50, will be found within one sigma of the solar result. Some few of the remainder are still babbling on about what they know, whereas the wise ones of their number are notably quiet.
One has no choice to take a hit on 19 when the dealer shows 20. That one does so does not not make one wise.
vukcevic (00:30:04) :
What is more important: How do you interpret sudden reversal at 1945.
Any solar-climate enthusiast will tell you that the reversal is due to the cooling effects of the [then] yet to come very large cycles 18 and 19…