![]()
Solar Cycle Driven by More than Sunspots; Sun Also Bombards Earth with High-Speed Streams of Wind
From an NCAR press release September 17, 2009
BOULDER—Challenging conventional wisdom, new research finds that the number of sunspots provides an incomplete measure of changes in the Sun’s impact on Earth over the course of the 11-year solar cycle. The study, led by scientists at the High Altitude Observatory of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the University of Michigan, finds that Earth was bombarded last year with high levels of solar energy at a time when the Sun was in an unusually quiet phase and sunspots had virtually disappeared.
“The Sun continues to surprise us,” says NCAR scientist Sarah Gibson, the lead author. “The solar wind can hit Earth like a fire hose even when there are virtually no sunspots.”
The study, also written by scientists at NOAA and NASA, is being published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research – Space Physics. It was funded by NASA and by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor.
Scientists for centuries have used sunspots, which are areas of concentrated magnetic fields that appear as dark patches on the solar surface, to determine the approximately 11-year solar cycle. At solar maximum, the number of sunspots peaks. During this time, intense solar flares occur daily and geomagnetic storms frequently buffet Earth, knocking out satellites and disrupting communications networks.
(Illustration by Janet Kozyra with images from NASA, courtesy Journal of Geophysical Research – Space Physics.) click for larger image”]
Gibson and her colleagues focused instead on another process by which the Sun discharges energy. The team analyzed high-speed streams within the solar wind that carry turbulent magnetic fields out into the solar system.
When those streams blow by Earth, they intensify the energy of the planet’s outer radiation belt. This can create serious hazards for weather, navigation, and communications satellites that travel at high altitudes within the outer radiation belts, while also threatening astronauts in the International Space Station. Auroral storms light up the night sky repeatedly at high latitudes as the streams move past, driving mega-ampere electrical currents about 75 miles above Earth’s surface. All that energy heats and expands the upper atmosphere. This expansion pushes denser air higher, slowing down satellites and causing them to drop to lower altitudes.
Scientists previously thought that the streams largely disappeared as the solar cycle approached minimum. But when the study team compared measurements within the current solar minimum interval, taken in 2008, with measurements of the last solar minimum in 1996, they found that Earth in 2008 was continuing to resonate with the effects of the streams. Although the current solar minimum has fewer sunspots than any minimum in 75 years, the Sun’s effect on Earth’s outer radiation belt, as measured by electron fluxes, was more than three times greater last year than in 1996.
Gibson said that observations this year show that the winds have finally slowed, almost two years after sunspots reached the levels of last cycle’s minimum.
The authors note that more research is needed to understand the impacts of these high-speed streams on the planet. The study raises questions about how the streams might have affected Earth in the past when the Sun went through extended periods of low sunspot activity, such as a period known as the Maunder minimum that lasted from about 1645 to 1715.
“The fact that Earth can continue to ring with solar energy has implications for satellites and sensitive technological systems,” Gibson says. “This will keep scientists busy bringing all the pieces together.”
Buffeting Earth with streams of energy
|
Sarah Gibson [ENLARGE](©UCAR, photo by Carlye Calvin.) News media terms of use* |
For the new study, the scientists analyzed information gathered from an array of space- and ground-based instruments during two international scientific projects: the Whole Sun Month in the late summer of 1996 and the Whole Heliosphere Interval in the early spring of 2008. The solar cycle was at a minimal stage during both the study periods, with few sunspots in 1996 and even fewer in 2008.
The team found that strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams of charged particles buffeted Earth in 2008. In contrast, Earth encountered weaker and more sporadic streams in 1996. As a result, the planet was more affected by the Sun in 2008 than in 1996, as measured by such variables as the strength of electron fluxes in the outer radiation belt, the velocity of the solar wind in the vicinity of Earth, and the periodic behavior of auroras (the Northern and Southern Lights) as they responded to repeated high-speed streams.
The prevalence of high-speed streams during this solar minimum appears to be related to the current structure of the Sun. As sunspots became less common over the last few years, large coronal holes lingered in the surface of the Sun near its equator. The high-speed streams that blow out of those holes engulfed Earth during 55 percent of the study period in 2008, compared to 31 percent of the study period in 1996. A single stream of charged particles can last for as long as 7 to 10 days. At their peak, the accumulated impact of the streams during one year can inject as much energy into Earth’s environment as massive eruptions from the Sun’s surface can during a year at the peak of a solar cycle, says co-author Janet Kozyra of the University of Michigan.
The streams strike Earth periodically, spraying out in full force like water from a fire hose as the Sun revolves. When the magnetic fields in the solar winds point in a direction opposite to the magnetic lines in Earth’s magnetosphere, they have their strongest effect. The strength and speed of the magnetic fields in the high-speed streams can also affect Earth’s response.
The authors speculate that the high number of low-latitude coronal holes during this solar minimum may be related to a weakness in the Sun’s overall magnetic field. The Sun in 2008 had smaller polar coronal holes than in 1996, but high-speed streams that escape from the Sun’s poles do not travel in the direction of Earth.
“The Sun-Earth interaction is complex, and we haven’t yet discovered all the consequences for the Earth’s environment of the unusual solar winds this cycle,” Kozyra says. “The intensity of magnetic activity at Earth in this extremely quiet solar minimum surprised us all. The new observations from last year are changing our understanding of how solar quiet intervals affect the Earth and how and why this might change from cycle to cycle.”
About the article
Title: “If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals”
Authors: Sarah Gibson, Janet Kozyra, Giuliana de Toma, Barbara Emory, Terry Onsager, and Barbara Thompson
Publication: Journal of Geophysical Research – Space Physics
Related sites on the World Wide Web
Whole Heliosphere Interval (2008)
h/t to Leif Svalgaard
====================================
Leif adds some perspective to this press release:
IMHO this is just another PR stunt, ‘never seen before’, ‘overturns what we thought before’, etc.
It has been known for a long time [decades] that there are strong recurrent solar wind streams leading up to solar minimum [EVERY solar minimum]. Attached are plots of the solar wind speed prior to minimum for many minima in the past. The blue curve show the speed derived from geomagnetic measurement and the pink curve shows that directly measured by spacecraft, some of the differences between the curves is due to missing data from the spacecraft [at times they only measured a small percentage of the time]. The smooth curves are 13 rotation running means.Also attached is the Recurrence Index, a measure for the recurrence tendency of the flow. High values = a solar rotation is very much like the previous one [the cross correlation between the two]

Especially the minimum in 1944 is very much like the current one in the sense that there was high-speed solar wind close to the minimum, even closer, fact. It is amazing that each new generation of scientists will have to rediscover and relearn what was already known. But such is human nature, every generation has to do this.


savethesharks (20:12:14) :
If I ever form it I am inviting you to be an adjunct!
For now, just fling funds 🙂
Leif Svalgaard (20:06:33) : “Too much ‘institution’ would stifle that disagreement and slow progress. What does the ‘I’ in GISS stand for…”
“I” stands for “Hansen”? LOL
No….I get ya on that. If there was a way to “hardwire” from the very beginning, to keep an “institute” from becoming like the GISS or any other scientific organization that has succumbed to politics.
I think there is a way to provide mechanisms in the charters of the organizations themselves to self-limit them from becoming politicized.
A long shot….no doubt.
But…. to take into account my own personal feelings: I don’t care if the sun takes last place or first place or in between in being the primary driver on earth’s climate.
I just want the TRUTH…however bland it may be.
Point is….the SUN does not have lobbyists….nor do cosmic rays or oceans.
We just need a major paradigm shift in scientific research.
WAY TOO long have scientists been at the whim and bitch-mode of politicians and corporations.
It should be the other way around, no??
If…IF we are evolving as a species [and I believe we are] then there is no reason it can’t be the other way around.
Politicians and businessmen and real estate developers and stock brokers all live in a fantasy world thanks to the baby-boom expansion, free of major world-wide catastrophes.
Science is the wave of the future…and our only hope.
Chris
Norfolk, Va, USA
‘what do you think of the institute idea?’
Fine with me. I like labs. Just promise me a mountain of data to dig into.
If you structure it loosely, like Silicon Valley used to do, it will be more than the sum of it’s parts.
Innocentious (07:38:02) : (Regarding the sun.) “… The moment you start talking about amplifications ( feedback ) you start sounding just like the people who advocate CO2 as the main climatic driver over the last 150 years. …
I have a growing concern over this kind of switch, too, Inno… It weakens the thrust of the (my?) belief that the C02 cry is a wolf cry and should be pursued and debunked in itself as it is driving both the money and the misery of AGW.
What actually drives climate is another matter; worth pursuing if only for the expansion of science — but is not the primary goal of all who wish to see a return of reason, and is therefore best divorced from the black and white end-of-the-world-is-nigh hysteria of the death-clouds of feral C02.
(Definition of feral on the Web: wild and menacing…)
rbateman (21:48:37) :
Just promise me a mountain of data to dig into.
SDO will give you a terabyte each and every day.
REPLY: A terabyte a day, keeps all other tasks away. – A
Pamela Gray (11:03:57) : “The answer is in the groupthink phenomenon. Humans are social animals that depend on like mindedness for survival. …
Brought back a vivid memory from my youth, Pamela. Moving the sheep through a gate. The lead sheep jumps some imaginary line (chasm?), and the rest of them follow with a bump showing the flowback of the leader’s panic or caution.
Leif Svalgaard (09:45:37) : Gene Nemetz (09:30:53) :
I don’t feel like arguing with you about Piers Corbyn again.
No argument, just answer the question.
No, I have experience with you. I suppose you don’t remember. I’ll just leave it at that.
Leif Svalgaard (22:25:29) :
That calls for a T3 line or better.
And with Anthony’s terrabyte a day SDO, we need a processing pipeline.
Siting? We need a solar tower and some scopes. Technology has die-cast carbon-fiber mirrors at 1/10 the cost and weight.
Smokey (10:45:38) : I realize we’ve gotten so far away from the original intent of the Constitution that we can’t get back.
Don’t be so sure Smokey!
Gene Nemetz (23:12:56) :
“No argument, just answer the question.”
No, I have experience with you. I suppose you don’t remember. I’ll just leave it at that.
Perhaps you can convince your Piers Corbyn to submit the article to WUWT instead?
Leif Svalgaard (23:37:09) :
You see? You can’t let it go.
Perhaps you can talk with Mr. Corbyn yourself.
His record speaks for itself. In the real world that’s the only thing that matters.
Leif Svalgaard (23:37:09) : submit the article
I don’t have any knowledge of this article.
You can wait until October 28. Because of Piers Corbyn’s success there will be people all over the world that will be interested to see what he will reveal.
The only reason I have replied to you these few times is because I didn’t want to leave an appearance that I was shying away from you.
Is this enough for you now sir?
Gene Nemetz (23:58:03) :
Leif Svalgaard (23:37:09) :
You see? You can’t let it go.
Perhaps you can talk with Mr. Corbyn yourself.
His record speaks for itself. In the real world that’s the only thing that matters.
What exactly is his record? I was following some of his predictions a while back and, to be frank, they were pretty wide of the mark. That could be down to bad luck, but I suspect Piers is a great one for trumpeting his successes while keeping quiet about his failures.
John Finn (00:32:18) :
No one ever claimed 100 % accuracy. Ok?
John Finn (00:32:18) : but I suspect Piers is a great one for trumpeting his successes while keeping quiet about his failures
This is not true. I have not observed this about him at all. Have you seen this in your experience of him? But I think you say you ‘suspect’ this about him. I think you should look more in to the issue. That would be for your sake.
This same thing happened in a thread some months ago—I was dragged in to an unnecessarily long argument.
I think some need to calm down about Piers Corbyn. I have no idea how, by his actions, he has earned ill feelings toward him from some.
Weather Action audits;
http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact5&fsize=0
Ulric Lyons (04:43:21) : Weather Action audits;
Weather Action is Piers Corbyn’s business place
Thanks Ulric.
Leif Svalgaard (08:27:42) :
tallbloke (02:49:38) :
25 years ago I attended a lecture by the Astronomer Royale who told us that he and his fellow astronomers were well on the way to proving irrefutably that the big bang theory was correct, that new discoveries were just around the corner, and within a few years, all the loose ends would be tied up.
I got a fit of the giggles then, and I’m still waiting.
“Well he was right and you apparently have been asleep since.”
Heh, caulk and spackle doesn’t cut it for me.
Neither does science, apparently…
Science’s methods are useful tools in the box, but I don’t rely on it for provision of ultimate truth about the origin and destiny of the universe. There are too many inconvenient facts which can’t be accommodated by the big bang theory for me to accept it.
Also, at the aesthetic level, I find the Big Bang theory intensely unsatisfying and nihilistic. Since it is nowhere near being a convincing explanation, I don’t feel the need to adhere to it.
A lot of folks crave certainty and feel the need to believe that science has a firm grip on the ultimate truth about the existence of everything. I’m quite content to accept that we are nowhere near knowing the ultimate truth about the existence of everything, and that we may indeed be barking up the wrong tree with the current pet theory.
This frees me to consider alternative ideas about the cosmos with an unbiased eye.
Leif 9:24:35
Oh, yes; were such a cause galactic or other it would indeed be mythologically epic.
===========================================
tallbloke 5:28:06
Another problem is what preceded the ‘Big Bang’. Cosmology and even more fundamentally, being, have unanswerable questions. Even the study of knowledge is artifactual and inadequate, witness the ‘creation’ debate.
===========================================
I’m a skeptic, but there are ‘Everlasting’ questions.
================================
Heh, the caulk, spackle, smoothing and painting haven’t quite covered it all.
Where is that doggone proton, anywho? And why?
==============================================
It’s only a bird in a gilded cage.
===================
tallbloke (05:28:06) :
There are too many inconvenient facts which can’t be accommodated by the big bang theory for me to accept it.
Such as?
The big bang theory…perhaps just another cycle that comes and goes. Matter expands and eventually contracts, the black hole being the ultimate player?