![]()
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.


Leif Svalgaard (18:08:15) :
That you can be taken in by such nonsense shows your low level of scientific literacy and your high level of pseudo-scientific literacy.
I’m not ‘taken in’ by anything Leif. My training is to be open minded enough to consider ideas dispassionately and objectively without becoming overly attached to any one of them. Unfortunately, your tendency is to reject ideas which can’t be accommodated by the current paradigm, and ridicule or otherwise disparage those who want to discuss them. What you fail to see is that the current paradigm is not a good benchmark from which to make a priori rejections of other possibilities, because it is internally inconsistent.
Especially as the big bang theory doesn’t seem to have any convincing explanation for the observation of the ‘galactic megawalls’ which are seperated by a regular distance in all directions from earth, if indeed redshift is a measure of distance rather than a function of a change in the speed of light WRT time.
Unless you want to posit the Earth as being at the centre of the universe? A special plea such as that would require some backing up would it not?
Leif Svalgaard (07:05:56) :
“She does not mention that at all. Perhaps you should read what she said.”
Extracts;
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.
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.
“tallbloke:
if indeed redshift is a measure of distance rather than a function of a change in the speed of light WRT time.”
Not really on topic but there is something that has bothered me for years.
Could there be some feature of the space between stars and galaxies that changes the speed of light with time and/or distance so that all our redshift based assumptions are merely illusions ?
It’s just seems so unlikely to me that in a complex universe the speed of light is a universal constant when everything else seems to change. I’ve also felt uncomfortable with the idea of constant expansion of the universe in every direction simultaneously.
Over to the experts.
“tallbloke:
if indeed redshift is a measure of distance rather than a function of a change in the speed of light WRT time.”
A change in wavelength and frequency, proportional to distance, same velocity.
These are all interesting questions to which no-one has certain answers. I agree with Stephen that the speed of light is unlikely to be constant always and everywhere. Small differences in the density of the intergalactic medium would add up to big differences in the time it takes for light to reach us from far away.
The other thing which was indicating to me that the universe the Big Bang theory tries to describe probably has some twists we haven’t yet got a handle on is the ‘coincidental’ relationship between the rate of expansion and the mass.
I can’t really remember what it was though, something to do with expansion and the ‘event horizon’. I was last looking at this stuff before the major accident I was in and my memory is patchy.
Is this “high-speed stream within the solar wind that carry turbulent magnetic fields out into the solar system” the “current sheet”?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliospheric_current_sheet
My take on the whole business of scientific and religious dogma is that if you weren’t there to experience it yourself, then you will never know for sure what happened. There is recorded history, but even then you have to trust that our predecessors were telling (or writing) the truth. Trying to say what happened 5 billion years ago is an exercise in rhetoric if I ever heard one, but the big bang theory is portrayed as undisputed fact in many books. I have nothing against theories but they should be portrayed as just that, theories, IMO.
[prohibited subject ~ ctm]
IMO, science ultimately comes down to observation, but unfortunately, we only have a few thousand years of human observation to go by.
Speed of light (according to Einstein) cannot be always constant. It has been conclusively shown that large masses bend light waves, in which case light traverses part of its path with certain tangential and angular velocity (angular velocity would change from zero on the strait line to a certain value on the curvature and back to zero again along strait line), i.e. in such a case light is subject to certain amount of acceleration (+ & -), hence its velocity is not constant.
Joel Savell (15:02:59)
[prohibited subject ~ ctm]
Management Summary
Everythings your uncle or aunt, just can’t be certain about your father.
Leif Svalgaard (06:58:01) :
You said:
“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”
Are you saying that the latest evidence for megawalls in concentric shells around earth is disproven? I would be grateful if would provide me a link to that.
Vukcevic (15:20:03) :
My Astronomy professor demonstrated that one in class:
Light does not change speed, it only appears to from the point of reference.
It’s still travelling at 300,000km/sec, but to the observer, it is no longer travelling straight at them, but is ‘refracted’ and must travel a longer distance.
When it is bent back again(by gravity or refraction, it returns to the original course, same speed. It just took a detour is all.
Ulric Lyons (08:35:52) :
“She does not mention that at all. Perhaps you should read what she said.”
Extracts; blah, blah…
One more time: nowhere does she mention climate.
tallbloke (08:10:10) :
Especially as the big bang theory doesn’t seem to have any convincing explanation for the observation of the ‘galactic megawalls’ which are seperated by a regular distance in all directions from earth, if indeed redshift is a measure of distance rather than a function of a change in the speed of light WRT time.
As I already said, we have observed hundred times as many galaxies since 1990 and this large material does not show any periodicity in the redshifts. Same to mark hobart (17:13:49)
Unless you want to posit the Earth as being at the centre of the universe? A special plea such as that would require some backing up would it not?
Not other than simple thought on your part. Periodicity in redshift would imply that galaxies be concentrated in concentric shells around the Earth, thus that the Earth is the center of the universe.
All:
The speed of light is constant, the bending of light in gravity has nothing to do with the speed of light, but with the curvature of space itself around a mass. It is clear that people that entertain the nonsense about changing the speed of light are also the ones entertaining the pseudo-science around here. I guess it goes with their territory. One can only wonder at their bewilderment and science illiteracy, dressed up as dispassionate open-mindedness. Perhaps a mind can so open that the brain falls out. This is a disgrace for the ‘best science blog’.
Doug (14:18:02) :
Is this “high-speed stream within the solar wind that carry turbulent magnetic fields out into the solar system” the “current sheet”?
No, the streams occur on either side of the current sheet. In the current sheet itself the solar wind speed is the lowest.
[evolution ~ prohibited subject ~ ctm]
Leif Svalgaard (18:18:02) :
You mean if everyone agreed with you there would no longer be any disgrace?
I guess it goes with their territory. One can only wonder at their bewilderment and science illiteracy…the science illiteracy is complete.
Can we be sure you aren’t rude?
Leif Svalgaard (06:58:01) : “The Milankovich ‘waves’ are not waves….”
They are, in a real sense. It just takes 1000s of years to go from trough to crest, and vice versa.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Leif Svalgaard (18:18:02) : “Perhaps a mind can so open that the brain falls out. This is a disgrace for the ‘best science blog’.”
And this approach that you take is what some see to be your Achilles Heel.
And this discussion is NOT a disgrace for the ‘best science blog.’ Quite the contrary.
Very little discussion here of the trace gas of CO2 causing the floods in Atlanta…
Because there is no discussion there.
However…”galactic megawalls” etc…..
Sounds inductive to me.
For all your brilliance…you really paint yourself into a cosmic corner sometimes.
This discussion is no disgrace at all.
Quite the contrary. Carry on, Tallbloke/Stephen.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
savethesharks (19:21:34) :
“The Milankovich ‘waves’ are not waves….”
They are, in a real sense. It just takes 1000s of years to go from trough to crest, and vice versa.
A wave is a disturbance that propagates through space and time, usually with transfer of energy. And the Milankovich effect is not a wave in any sense. There is no ‘disturbance’ that travels. That things are periodic does not make them waves. “Wave” has a very precise meaning in physics and are described by the wave equation, see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_equation
savethesharks (19:35:31) :
And this discussion is NOT a disgrace for the ‘best science blog.’
Unfortunately it is. It is very difficult for other people to take us seriously with so many here peddling this nonsense. You may be self-congratulatory and smug in your ignorance, but that reflects badly on WUWT.
Leif, could you answer this please.
Could there be some feature of the space between stars and galaxies that changes the speed of light with time and/or distance so that all our redshift based assumptions are merely illusions ?
I’m asking a simple question, not peddling nonsense.
Leif Svalgaard (22:52:42) : to savethesharks (19:35:31) :“… You may be self-congratulatory and smug in your ignorance, but that reflects badly on WUWT.”
We do tend to be self-indulgent here at times. It is not always easy to refrain from pursuing enticing theories which, in a different forum, we would be free to do, but which on WUWT? pose the danger of weakening the authority which this web log has earned. Discipline is not always easy, but I believe is called for here. Without trying to put words into Anthony’s mouth, nor to pre-empt him in any way, I do believe WUWT? has a well defined and important mission: to foster and present reason within the sciences involved for the purpose of defeating misinformation and propaganda which will adversely effect all mankind.
It is almost inevitable that the present paradigm of understanding will change. It is in the nature of understanding if not in the nature of nature itself.
============================================
Leif Svalgaard (18:18:02) :
“One more time: nowhere does she mention climate.”
I can`t find the word climate either, I must have been reading too much into “Maunder minimum”. Silly me, that`s just very low SSN and nothing to do with climate!