![]()
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.


Doug:
Is this “high-speed stream within the solar wind that carry turbulent magnetic fields out into the solar system” the “current sheet”?
Leif Svalgaard:
No, the streams occur on either side of the current sheet. In the current sheet itself the solar wind speed is the lowest.
Doug:
I am very interested in this topic. Can you provide links for what you are saying please?
Stephen Wilde (23:25:13) :
That may be true but I cannot see why it precludes tidal interactions between sun and planets affecting the materials which comprise each of them.
The problem is that tides arise from the space being curved differently on either side of a body of non-zero extend. What we used to call ‘the gravitational field’. Tides exist and are real. The barycenter does not rise any tides, so have no real tidal effect. Tides rise to a height proportional to the distance cubed, and it very small for Jupiter on the sun: less that 1/2 millimeter.
Stephen Wilde (23:13:50) :
My question was whether multiple masses whilst in free fall together and whilst following geodesics together could nevertheless experience an interaction of forces between themselves due to the difference in their masses.
No, the masses has are not doing anything in this regard. Non-zero diameters are important in rising tides.
Doug (06:57:22) :
I am very interested in this topic. Can you provide links for what you are saying please?
http://www.leif.org/research/A%20View%20of%20Solar%20Magnetic%20Fields,%20the%20Solar%20Corona,%20and%20the%20Solar%20Wind%20in%20Three%20Dimensions.pdf
tallbloke (01:38:20) :
Wrong again. You are only forced to this conclusion if you are already assuming that the periodicities in redshift are related to velocities.
The redshift is not related to velocities. The galaxies are not moving through space at all. It is space that is expanding that is the cause of the redshift. All your other statements about this are complete nonsense and pseudo-science. The modern measurements of redshifts are the most accurate we have. You are a prime example of stubborn, willful ignorance. This is so sad.
Gene Nemetz (19:43:15) :
And that is : you can find anything with a quick Google search.
I happen to know whereof I speak and can there filter out the junk.
Gene Nemetz (06:42:29) :
How heretical, huh!
If you use such words in ‘scientific’ discussion you have already admitted that you are treating this a religion and not science.
Gene Nemetz (19:40:57) :
Again, there is no evidence in the fossil record of transformations across order lines, i.e., there are no missing links. I think that’s why they call them ‘missing’.
‘They?’ No scientist use words like that. They are meaningless as the old order does not transform into a new one, but continues to exist. It may later to extinct [that is another matter]. All of this is solid science. That you don’y know about it or want not to see it is your loss.
Gene Nemetz (21:52:16) :
You have issues Leif.
Yes, I do have issues with people that mix their religion with science or uses it to bias their view of science. These days, we need science more than ever, to counter our stupid politicians and silly activists.
Leif Svalgaard (10:15:08):
The modern measurements of redshifts are the most accurate we have. You are a prime example of stubborn, willful ignorance. This is so sad.
Wrong again Leif. The 2sF survey has an accuracy of +-85km/s. How will you prove or disprove a 72km/s periodicity with that?
Sure Leif, have it your way.
I have to shake my head at the thought that some people think you are brilliant.
tallbloke (09:49:20) :
How will you prove or disprove a 72km/s periodicity with that?
How about you convincing us with relevant links and careful evaluation of the accuracy of 30-40 old measurements compared to modern data.
Leif Svalgaard (11:32:42) :
[oh boy, was there an evolution debate while I was sleeping? Prohibited subject. Prohibited. Prohibited. Prohibited. ~ ctm]
[ok, I just looked and see it’s been going on for days. I have been traveling and not around much. I will be deleting most of it ~ charles the moderator]
Gene Nemetz (11:40:20) :
[oh boy, was there an evolution debate while I was sleeping? Prohibited subject. Prohibited. Prohibited. Prohibited. ~ ctm]
[ok, I just looked and see it’s been going on for days. I have been traveling and not around much. I will be deleting most of it ~ charles the moderator]
As it well deserves to be.
Leif Svalgaard (11:55:02) : Your comment is awaiting moderation
[I will be deleting most of it ~ charles the moderator]
As it well deserves to be, along with BB and barycenter nonsense.
Leif Svalgaard (11:55:02) : As it well deserves to be.
Are everyone elses comments deserving of deletion and not yours Leif?
Reply: I’ve deleted a few of Leif’s ~ ctm
it’s been going on for days.
That leaves the impression that is was ok.
Reply: Yeah, sorry about that. There are multiple moderators and things sometimes slip by. I’m surprised Anthony let it go on this long. Moderating is a thankless job and sometimes the moderators fall out of sync. I’m not happy about this. It’s a lot of extra work. This is an hour I did not have today. ~ charles the moderator
[snip ~ enough ~ ctm]
ctm
I was a reluctant participant because I know where these debates usually go. But I continued only because I was learning something other than about ‘evolution’. I was probing—unknowingly to someone ;-).
Now that I see you say it is a prohibited topic here I will be glad to stay away from it.
Sorry for the faux pas of being on that topic.
ctm I’m not happy about this. It’s a lot of extra work. This is an hour I did not have today. ~ charles the moderator
This thread isn’t on the front page of WUWT. So I think few people saw the comments. Just telling us to get off the topic would have been enough—it would have been for me, probably for Leif too. That way you wouldn’t have had to spend time deleting anything. It’s Saturday—I wish you would have been out enjoying the day instead.
Reply: Enough already. This is done. No one is angry. ~ ctm
Leif Svalgaard (11:34:33) :
tallbloke (09:49:20) :
How will you prove or disprove a 72km/s periodicity with that?
How about you convincing us with relevant links and careful evaluation of the accuracy of 30-40 old measurements compared to modern data.
Blimey, I didn’t realise the attempt to sweep Tifft and Arp under the carpet had been going on that long.
Seriously though, modern whole sky techniques are great, but not necessarily more accurate than older small scale studies.
Anyhow, Guthrie and Napier are up to date with using newer data, and they still confirm Tifft’s findings.
I’ll follow your recommendation and read up more on this to find out about accuracy and resolution.
Gene Nemetz:
Sure Leif, have it your way.
I have to shake my head at the thought that some people think you are brilliant.
Leif is an example of someone well steeped in the current paradigm. But that paradigm is quickly passing. It is always possible within the cocoon of a reigning paradigm to find “explanations” for everything and be dismissive of different ideas. Until those new ideas become the new paradigm. This is the pattern.
kim
“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.”
I agree.
For example, the present belief is that the earth is round. This paradigm will be superseded when TIME is acknowledged and incorporated.
When TIME is incorporated (as in the space-time continuum) then the earth will be recognized as being a spiral.
Every paradigm will be superseded.
A paradigm changes when a new dimension is perceived. When TIME is fully incorporated all the current paradigms will change. And when the fact that everything is ALIVE is perceived and acknowledged all current paradigms will dramatically change.
Like to read, most of the time I get banned but still……………Let’s have a thought experiment: if HARP is fluffing up the ionosphere to make more room for the cosmic rays to bounce back and forth, losing energy, causing less to hit the Earth at full energy, wouldn’t that be a good thing? And if the Moon slam stirs up dust, H2O, other to attract the cosmic rays, maybe even electrostaticaly, that would be a good thing, yes?