![]()
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.


ralph (09:22:19) :
If you believe that the Maunder epoch was colder, then there must be a mechanism for that.
Solar cycle 4 was one of the largest on record, yet it was cold, there must be a mechanism for that…
Leif Svalgaard (07:21:50) :
You don’t see it because the effect you are looking for is not the effect that the two datasets are trying to tell you.
The Steady State System you are trying to paint on everything that matters is unreal.
Leif Svalgaard (09:29:04) :
The goal of research should not be to discredit anybody, but to find out how things work.
Cut, pasted and kept. 😉
D Johnson (09:30:01) :
The percentage of people in the US who believe in the literal truth of such a young Earth would be far lower.
Your link suggests 18% rather than 45%, and weasels out a bit, but saying that there are people that put the age at 10,000 years, so we’ll have to add those to the 18%.
Either way, the point was that the percentage is high, far too high for a rational society. Same thing with Evolution [related, of course].
Scott Mandia (03:11:51) : Oh dear. Well, I suppose there is no hope for you then. That anyone would take such a partisan scumbag as Mooney seriously is, to my mind, appalling.
D Johnson (09:30:01) :
The percentage of people in the US who believe in the literal truth of such a young Earth would be far lower.
the issue is not that particular belief, but the general level of scientific literacy in the US. You link has this: “Seven Gallup polls taken between 1982 and 2006 showed that between 44 and 47% of Americans agreed with the following statement:
God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so”
One might ask where the 10,000 years come from. And the question just asked for ‘at one time within the last 10,000 years’. ‘Last Tuesday’ would qualify. So, to agree, you have to dismiss the scientific measurements of ages, that show much longer times, e.g. of cave paintings 30,000 years ago, and of the general history of the human race and its spread over the world. So, its about science literary, not religion. And their US is dismal. This is, of course, cleverly exploited for political reasons. The ‘science is settled”, because Joe the Plummer can’t understand the issues and is easily deceived.
Now, that raises the question why people in other nations with much better science literacy [e.g. Denmark] are taken in by the politicians. I don’t know the answer to that one, but it may have something to do with a perceived notions that the US is scientifically advanced [number of Nobel Prize winners, e.g.] and so what Al Gore says must be true [if inconvenient]. I don’t know. It might be interesting to know what people in China thinks about this. Anybody know?
rbateman (09:57:33) :
You don’t see it because the effect you are looking for is not the effect that the two datasets are trying to tell you.
Then you tell me what the two datasets are trying to tell.
The answer is in the groupthink phenomenon. Humans are social animals that depend on like mindedness for survival. Many lower species demonstrate this quite clearly in how they protect their young, their territory, etc. Humans demonstrate this same instinct in their beliefs. In order to receive benefit from the group, it becomes necessary to think like the group, even in things that may not be scientifically valid. Our animal humanness trumps all.
Leif, if the solar wind weren’t much different in the Maunder Minimum than it is today, which I think you are implying, what is the reason for the lower 10Be and 14 C levels throughout that period?
Pamela Gray (11:03:57) :
The answer is in the groupthink phenomenon. Humans are social animals that depend on like mindedness for survival. Many lower species demonstrate this quite clearly in how they protect their young, their territory, etc. Humans demonstrate this same instinct in their beliefs. In order to receive benefit from the group, it becomes necessary to think like the group, even in things that may not be scientifically valid. Our animal humanness trumps all..
aka “consensus” :).
@ur momisugly Andrew (10:05:41) :
I never said I agreed with his politics but I do agree with his observation that scientists need to get off their academic high horses and communicate to the non-scientists with language that is understandable. The overwhelming majority of the public will never have an appetite for reading peer-reviewed journals.
BTW, this issue is the current thread over at your favorite blog – Realclimate. 🙂
“So, its about science literary, not religion. And their US is dismal.’ inre, belief the earth is only 6,000 yo
The only important distiction between science and faith is that in the US, one is a Constitutionally protected activity. The founders saw fit to leave matters of religion up to the individual in the free exercise clause. This they saw as foundational to the functioning of a free republic. This means that free citizens may choose any cosmology they like.
It may be an emotional issue for some people that there are young earth creationists out there. But it may be beneficial to set one’s emotions aside, as it really is a legal issue. If the gov’t is slowly deciding more and more questions of faith for the people, then they cannot call themselves free.
Why say the gov’t is slowly making more and more of these religious determinations? Because the Big Bang, planetary accretion, and evolution are universally taught in schools. By way of forceful taxation and truancy laws, all children must learn this cosmology.
One minor point. I think that many scientists do not agree with the Big Bang/evolution narrative. Most Americans are familiar with it, and may also be more familiar with the scientific arguments agaist this paradigm then you give them credit for. So scientific literacy can be served by criticism of scientific dogmas, as well.
John (12:11:03) :
if the solar wind weren’t much different in the Maunder Minimum than it is today, which I think you are implying, what is the reason for the lower 10Be and 14 C levels throughout that period?
Apart from you meaning higher rather than lower, there has been a reassessment of the 10Be and 14C fluxes in recent work. If you look at Figure 1 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004.pdf you’ll see that the fluxes [2nd and 5th panel from the top] of 10Be first of all are different between two sites [NGRIP and Dye-3], second that the peaks around 1700 really were when the Sun was coming out of the MM, and also that the flux [for the high-precision NGRIP core] around 1700 was not different from that around 1810 and 1890 [and we wouldn’t call them MMs]. There is a distinct possibility that these peaks anyway are not even solar related, but due to [perhaps in part] volcanic eactivity affecting the deposition of 10Be. Solar activity was probably lower at these times, but not terribly so. The sharp peaks at 1460 AD was probably due to GCRs from a supernova. It is not so clear-cut as we thought a decade or two ago.
Frank Lansner (00:26:27) :
In the US, the election schedules play a big role in how laws get enacted. When you have a new President, he basically has the first year to get done what is going to get done. In his second year, the next congressional elections kick in, and very few congressmen or senators up for election want to do anything that can be held against them; so nothing gets done.
This means the President must be very selective about what he pushes for in his first year. O’Bama has chosen health care reform. That means everything else gets very little, if any attention, including the Cap and Trade laws.
Only after lots of bribes and threats did the House manage to pass a Cap and Trade bill. They managed by one vote.
The Senate has made it clear there will be no Cap and Trade bill even considered. Americans are seeing what the cost will be and are also seeing the climate is cooling off just fine without giving more money to the government.
The American public will kill anyone raising taxes this year on energy.
I believe we will look back on 2008 as the high water mark for the environmentalist movement. Economic and climatic trends are in place to guarantee no passage of Cap and Trade. What little credibility remains in the AGW camp will be gone within five years with the polar caps intact and temperatures on their way down.
Most people I talk with don’t really want to talk about things like cosmic rays, recovering ice caps, manipulated temperature records and the like. First, not as much curiosity about the natural world and they have their lives to live. Getting a job and paying bills are the biggest worries.
Americans aren’t wise, they’re just too busy to bother with nonsense like cap and trade. Too bad for Al Gore and his financial partners. There won’t be any bucks to be made on manipulating carbon credit prices.
They’re just going to have to steal money the old fashioned way.
“” Leif Svalgaard (09:55:51) :
ralph (09:22:19) :
If you believe that the Maunder epoch was colder, then there must be a mechanism for that.
Solar cycle 4 was one of the largest on record, yet it was cold, there must be a mechanism for that…””
Ok there was a couple of severe winters from 1785 to 1798, but the mean yearly temp`s were generally not too cold, and some quite warm.
From CET:
8.54
8.25
9.28
9.21
8.91
9.44
9.27
9.19
9.09
9.89
8.67
9.02
9
9.61
C3 was even bigger, and apart from 1784, even warmer at times.
1776 had a London frost fair, 1779/80 was a cold winter, but high N.H. summer temp`s occurred through most of C3.
CET, 1775-84;
10.09
9.01
9.08
9.2
10.4
9.09
10.2
8.01
9.28
7.83
I am not saying SSN is directly proportional to temperature, but there is some relationship.
Zeke the Sneak (12:41:19) :
This means that free citizens may choose any cosmology they like.
When it comes to science, no choice is possible. Nature shows us what is, whether or not it fits our faith or belief system. And our children should be taught that.
Interesting how the 40% of USA people who do not believe in evolution are essentially the same ones who reject AGW and so keep the AGW-ers from controlling everything. This is because they know how full of BS the intelligensia & media are. So these people have common sense and no science, and our would-be masters thus have science but no common sense. People with both are rare. I like to think I have both.
tallbloke (09:55:31) :
Leif:
‘bashful ballerina’
Hmmmmm, interesting. 🙂
Thanks Leif, you truly are a mine of interesting information.
—-
Surely, a field of mines!!
Zeke the Sneak (12:41:19) :
One minor point. I think that many scientists do not agree with the Big Bang/evolution narrative.
You are most certainly wrong there. Modern astrophysics/biology don’t make sense without that narrative. We are making enormous strides in both areas. Most scientists would not bother debating this, only the nuts.
Hi everyone
Just back from http://www.me land, and to my surprise I see that WUWT has moved there with its web address. WUWT you are welcome, to the micro-country of great contrasts, deep blue sea and bright skies!
(http://www.sunrise-doo.com/apps/photos/album?albumid=2079797)
Dr. Svalgaard
If you got a higher resolution data for z-component for 60N 90W, I would really appreciate copy pasted on the SC24 thread.
Thanks.
To Scott Mandia:
Peer reviewed by whom? The same scientists who are part of the same clique and who peer review each other? How about the reviewers like Steve McIntyre, Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen or Ross McKittrick who have their comments (as peer reviewers) ignored or rejected because they don’t follow the concensus groupthink? It is a good old boy system that the left constantly decries when done by an oil, pharmaceutical, or Insurance industry company. The fact that you look at your “buddies” work and (wink, wink) say it is fine and he does the same for you makes the whole process corrupt and unverifiable by independent people who are refused access to data or computer codes in an attempt to replicate the “peer reviewed studies”. It seems to me you are tragically naive about how hte system truly works if you swallow it so easily.
Oliver Ramsay (13:22:34) :
Surely, a field of mines!!
That blow up half-baked ideas, idle speculation, pseudo-science, rhetoric, and the like.
Willy (13:22:21) :
I like to think I have both.
What, both no common sense and no science? 🙂
Vukcevic (13:35:42) :
If you got a higher resolution data for z-component for 60N 90W, I would really appreciate copy pasted on the SC24 thread
What good is that gonna do you? The secular variation is so slow that you can just linearly interpolate, or quadratic, if you want to gold-plate the thing. The data does not get any better before 1945 or so anyway, by going to higher resolution.
Scott Mandia (12:27:13) :
“@ur momisugly Andrew (10:05:41) :
I never said I agreed with his politics but I do agree with his observation that scientists need to get off their academic high horses and communicate to the non-scientists with language that is understandable. The overwhelming majority of the public will never have an appetite for reading peer-reviewed journals.
BTW, this issue is the current thread over at your favorite blog – Realclimate. :)”
They do this anyway, through PR releases and articles which are often publshed before papers are available. Once you dumb down the research so Joe public can understand it and let the journalists put whatever spin their employers want to see on it, and the whole thing becomes a futile process.
The only way to solve the ‘knowledge is power’ conudrum is to teach people how to think. The powers that be don’t want this to happen, or course, as ignorant people are easy to influence.
Only the nuts question BB/accretion/evolution. So much for that argument then.
But based on gov’t involvement in religious issues, if my theory is correct, then I will make this prediction:
The government will want to move into the area of end-of-the-world scenarios, and indulgences. 🙂
[Think Thermogeddon and offsets!]