![]()
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 (15:10:05) :
“Pamela Gray (09:33:58) :Once again Stephen, I have to comment on your clarity of thought and what seems to me to be a wonderfully logical mind. You are to the oceans what Leif is to the Sun. 4 marks.”
I could not agree more. And he is an easy read at that. I sincerely hope he will compile all of these elegant posts for a book!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
That’s quite a testimonial Pamela and savethesharks.
I think I’d better start taking the idea seriously since the real world of climate does seem to be fitting in to the general gist of my assertions.
Anthony, is there a way that I can extract all my posts from your archive and save them for my future use ?
Gene Nemetz (00:57:07) :
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
I’ve got no particular feelings either way about Piers Corbyn. I’m just questioning the accuracy of his forecasts.
Stephen Wilde (08:48:54) :
Anthony, is there a way that I can extract all my posts from your archive and save them for my future use ?
Same question…
tallbloke (05:28:06) : Neither does science, apparently…
Good bit of wit tall! 😉
tallbloke (05:28:06) : Also, at the aesthetic level, I find the Big Bang theory intensely unsatisfying and nihilistic.
The original idea of the big bang loses support as time goes by. Since is is becoming clearer that there never was ‘nothing’ before the big bang new and more more fascinating hypothesis are popping up. Membranes are fascinating to me.
Guth’s Inflation are the place where the big bang is finding a home—a much different concept that Georges Lemaître in mond. Though I wonder if Lemaître would have been just as fascinated with Inflation as others are. IMO I think he would.
Geoff Sharp (08:20:28) : The big bang theory…perhaps just another cycle
I never liked the idea of there being ‘nothing at the beginning’ either.
Leif Svalgaard (09:00:36) :
Stephen Wilde (08:48:54) :
Anthony, is there a way that I can extract all my posts from your archive and save them for my future use ?
Same question…
Go to
http://www.google.com
Enter the following in the search box:
site:wattsupwiththat.com “Leif Svalgaard”
896 results, many will be references to you by other people, so some filtering required, less so for Stephen I would guess.
Leif Svalgaard (06:35:58) :
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?
Take 6 minutes of your life to listen carefully to this.
Then we can discuss the disposition of matter in space if you like.
Thanks tallbloke.
That gets me to each of the threads I have contributed to.
Is there a way to extract my comments alone and save them to my computer without dealing with every comment individually ?
Search for
‘Stephen Wilde (‘
Should get just your comments?
” Gene Nemetz (09:47:17) :
Geoff Sharp (08:20:28) : The big bang theory…perhaps just another cycle
I never liked the idea of there being ‘nothing at the beginning’ either.”
Just see it as a metaphor for a mindset, rather than the nature of the cosmos :0
as below, so above!
Stephen Wilde (10:38:19) :
Thanks tallbloke.
That gets me to each of the threads I have contributed to.
Is there a way to extract my comments alone and save them to my computer without dealing with every comment individually ?
Perhaps you could copy and paste the whole pages into notepad (CTL-A works to highlight all the text) and then use the search function to find your name followed by a space and left bracket. This should get you to the top line of each of your posts. Then you can cut’n’paste each of your posts into another file.
Stephen Wilde (10:38:19) :
Stephen
You want to find the unique comment ID number for your individaul postings within a given thread?
The following workflow may help you:
Using Internet Explorer choose the Source option under the View menu.
Source opens the full thread coding into Notepad.
In Notepad use the Find option to search for your postings by your personal Name.
For each hit look for the comment id number e.g.
Edit the Address bar for your thread to include this ID number at the end of the thread root e.g. /#comment-190919
This address will take you directly to your comment e.g.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/17/ncar-number-of-sunspots-provides-an-incomplete-measure-of-changes-in-the-suns-impact-on-earth/#comment-190919
” John Finn (00:32:18) :
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.”
I am sure Piers is happy at getting 85% and above accuracy on weather events, a year or more in advance.
Clever, isn`t it.
Oops 🙁
Ho Hum…
Not 190919, that was Leif’s comment, let’s try 190955
As has been commented by others before me, this blog lacks a preview thread..
Now there is a way round that too, but I don’t want to get myself barred 😉
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/17/ncar-number-of-sunspots-provides-an-incomplete-measure-of-changes-in-the-suns-impact-on-earth/#comment-190955
Thanks chaps. I’ll have a go at the various suggestions.
Ulric Lyons (11:18:37) : as below, so above!
Seems to be as lot of that in the science world.
I still am confounded by the story that conferences were held to denounce Einstein’s Relativity right after the theory was published. Scientists would give their view as to why it was not only wrong, but some said he was crazy. One scientist even said Einstein should be killed for bringing such bizarre ideas that came from Relativity into the world.
Einstein actually attended some of the conferences, sat in the audience, and tried to defend himself.
I think the same thing, to a lesser degree, is happening now to Henrik Svensmark, Piers Corbyn, Richard Lindzen, etc. as happened to Einstein.
tallbloke (10:32:53) :
Take 6 minutes of your life to listen carefully to this.
Then we can discuss the disposition of matter in space if you like.
This is cyclomania even worse than the planetary cycles. Since 1990, our redshift data has increased by several orders of magnitude and the resulting distribution does not show any such cycles. That you can be taken in by such nonsense shows your low level of scientific literacy and your high level of pseudo-scientific literacy. No wonder that AGW has such a grip on people, if your level is typical of the general population. This is sad.
Leif Svalgaard (12:35:54) :
Zeke the Sneak (11:58:35) :
Alright, then double-blind experimentation.
—
Groping in the dark by blind people?
—
Well, I try to speak so PhDs can understand me. But I don’t always succeed.
I am just messing with you. Always read your posts, Dr. S.
Leif Svalgaard (18:08:15) :
tallbloke (10:32:53) :
Take 6 minutes of your life to listen carefully to this.
Then we can discuss the disposition of matter in space if you like.
This is cyclomania even worse than the planetary cycles. Since 1990, our redshift data has increased by several orders of magnitude and the resulting distribution does not show any such cycles. That you can be taken in by such nonsense shows your low level of scientific literacy and your high level of pseudo-scientific literacy. No wonder that AGW has such a grip on people, if your level is typical of the general population. This is sad.
Leif, your dramatic hyperbole as to how “sad” this is, is no better than any fantastic science-fiction theory.
But until disproven, it must at least be entertained.
Milankovitch waves are over as much as .1 million years.
If there are oscillations that far apart, then there might be ones on even longer timespans… orders of magnitude longer.
After all…the world is not 6000 years old [har har] but 4.6 Billion, as far as we know.
Standing waves are peculiar creatures…and they do exist in nature….so this is not out of the realm of possibility.
Stop being such a positivist. 🙂
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Gene Nemetz (14:07:20) :
“Scientists would give their view as to why it was not only wrong, but some said he was crazy.”
Like David Bellamy O.B.E. yes?
I`m sure he will get vindicated though.
Its good to see this article (Sarah Gibson) discuss coronal holes and the solar wind in relation to climate, an intelligent change from the loop dogma; TSI is flat, TSI is flat TSI is flat.
Ulric Lyons (12:51:31) :
” John Finn (00:32:18) :
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.”
I am sure Piers is happy at getting 85% and above accuracy on weather events, a year or more in advance.
Clever, isn`t it.
Have you got any of his predictions for say, 3 to 6 months time, that I can check out. The more the merrier.
John Finn (02:14:27) :
“Have you got any of his predictions for say, 3 to 6 months time, that I can check out. The more the merrier.”
You have to buy those.
I would be interested in which ones you regard as being “pretty wide of the mark”.
Mail me for discussion if you like rather than go OT. ulriclyons at gmail dot com.
savethesharks (00:44:35) :
Milankovitch waves are over as much as .1 million years.
If there are oscillations that far apart, then there might be ones on even longer timespans… orders of magnitude longer.
The Milankovich ‘waves’ are not waves, anymore than the yearly variations in temperature are waves that sweep over the Earth.
But the real problem with periodicities in redshift is that they place the Earth at the center of the universe. If there are more galaxies at a certain redshift [distance] than at neighboring redshifts, that means that there are more galaxies in a shell centered on the Earth [from where the distance is measured]. If furthermore that excess repeats at equidistant redshifts, that means that there are concentric shells [centered on the Earth] with more galaxies than the background. This is not observed [so is disproven] in the newest surveys based on orders magnitudes more galaxies than was known in 1990 and is on its face absurd, lest you want to say that Aristotle was right and the Earth is indeed the center of the Universe [or at least of all these concentric shells of galaxies]. That is where the pseudo-science comes in, and where science takes leave.
savethesharks (00:44:35) :
After all…the world is not 6000 years old [har har] but 4.6 Billion, as far as we know.
Actually 13.8 billion, lest we take the Aristotle view that the Earth is the center of the Universe and that there the Universe has the same age as the Earth.
Ulric Lyons (02:10:28) :
Its good to see this article (Sarah Gibson) discuss coronal holes and the solar wind in relation to climate
She does not mention that at all. Perhaps you should read what she said.