NCAR: "number of sunspots provides an incomplete measure of changes in the Sun's impact on Earth"

NCAR

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”]solar diagramGibson 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

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)

Whole Sun Month (1996)

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]

Sargent Recurrence Index - click for larger image
Sargent Recurrence Index - click for larger image

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.

click for larger image
click for larger image
Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
344 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 18, 2009 2:01 pm

tallbloke (09:55:31) :
Leif:
‘bashful ballerina’
Hmmmmm, interesting. 🙂
Thanks Leif, you truly are a mine of interesting information.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3S-4P4FV84-D&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1016893017&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=80050619afc7a0dabf1ae7d5ee8840a5
extract; It has been shown that the global HMF has persistent active longitudes whose dominance depicts an oscillation with a period of about 3.2 years. Accordingly, the bashful ballerina takes three such steps per activity cycle, thus dancing in waltz tempo. Stellar observations show that this is a general pattern for sun-like cool stars. We describe these phenomena and discuss their implications.
3.2 years = 2 Venus synodic periods, and 1.5 Mars synodic periods.

September 18, 2009 2:36 pm

Leif Svalgaard (13:06:39) :
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.

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.
Our children should be taught to be inquisitive, experimental, and skeptical of those who claim to be the high priests of truth, whether they are carrying bibles, almanacs, or particle physics papers.

September 18, 2009 2:39 pm

Ulric Lyons (14:01:22) :
3.2 years = 2 Venus synodic periods, and 1.5 Mars synodic periods.
And 3.2 Earth synodic periods and exactly 1/51.5 of Uranus’…

Willy
September 18, 2009 2:51 pm

Not changing the topic here, but Leif, the Big Bang does have its problems. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are now needed to model about 90% of the universe, to keep the model together. Anything with band-aids that big cannot be a healthy puppy.

John
September 18, 2009 2:58 pm

Leif, I’ve looked at the two panels you asked me to look at. I partly agree and partly and respectfully disagree for the moment with your interpretation.
I agree that although the two panels tend to move together, the NGRIP has higher peaks in the 1810/1815 and 1890 peaks, and leading up to 1700 as well. So they do differ, as you say.
The Maunder Minimum was 1645 to 1715. The NGRIP panel shows 10Be rising all the was from 1645 through 1700, before it abates a bit. That pattern perfectly fits the MM. The flux at Dye doesn’t escalate that much until close to 1700, so the match isn’t as good, but it still shows a peak during the MM.
You used the term high precision for the NGRIP record. Does this possibly imply that the 10Be flux there is somewhat more accurate than the Dye record? If not, what is your sense for why the 10Be records differ, as I agree they do?
You suggest that volcanos might be a cause for elevated 10Be levels, which is interesting and new to me. Is it possible that what you have called the 1810 and 1890 elevations are actually in 1815 and 1885 or a year or two afterwards? It looks this could be the case. If they were 1815 and 1885 or slightly later, they would coincide exactly with the two biggest volcanos of that century, Tambora and Krakatoa. And if this is the case, then the two biggest peaks of 10Be which don’t coincide with the MM would be explained by vulcanism.
Your thoughts? and thanks.

September 18, 2009 3:03 pm

Leif Svalgaard (14:39:27) :
Ulric Lyons (14:01:22) :
3.2 years = 2 Venus synodic periods, and 1.5 Mars synodic periods.
And 3.2 Earth synodic periods and exactly 1/51.5 of Uranus’…

Ulric, wait ’til you see Ian Wilson’s forthcoming paper. The resonance periods are tieing up nicely. Leif likes to ridicule those of us who have an interest in these things, but then, we like to ridicule his passe petty positivism and his dilletante deprecatory denialism of planetary positional paradiddles, so fair’s fair.

DaveC
September 18, 2009 3:39 pm

Scott Mandia-
I don’t think the general public has a problem with AGW because peer-reviewed science is ‘over their heads.’ I think the Chicken Little sky-is-falling, ‘it’s worse than we thought,’ blame everything on global warming that the MSM and climate scientists partake in is what turns the public off. And it makes this trained scientist highly suspicious, or should I say- skeptical.

September 18, 2009 3:58 pm

tallbloke (14:36:13) :
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.

September 18, 2009 4:13 pm

Willy (14:51:51) :
Dark Matter and Dark Energy are now needed to model about 90% of the universe, to keep the model together.
Those are not problems, but things we have learned. And they are not really dependent on the BB. They are needed to explain observations we are making right now.
John (14:58:40) :
You used the term high precision for the NGRIP record. Does this possibly imply that the 10Be flux there is somewhat more accurate than the Dye record? If not, what is your sense for why the 10Be records differ, as I agree they do?
The high-precision refers to the time resolution.
And if this is the case, then the two biggest peaks of 10Be which don’t coincide with the MM would be explained by vulcanism.
10Be is deposited by adhering to stratospheric aerosols which then drift down and rain out. The amount of aerosols in the stratosphere is controlled mainly by volcanic eruptions. There were such strong eruptions in 1693 (Hekla on Iceland, having large effect on nearby Greenland), 1809 (see Dai JGR 96, 1991), 1814 (Mayon), 1815 (Tambora), 1883 (Krakatoa), and 1897 )Mayon again. By 1810 and 1890, I meant 1810s and 1890s. A reconstruction of the solar wind magnetic field from 10Be [which is what we are discussing] by McCracken is here [my version with an easier to view Figure] http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20From%20McCracken%20HMF.pdf Apart from a calibration problem he has in the 1940s where he is trying to splice two different record together, it is clear that the level in 1645-1690 [most of the MM] is not much different from 1765-1800 or 1830-1880 or even 1900-1940. Those sharp dips are not [and we are certain of that since 1850] solar-related. The volcano explanation is tempting, but is just a suggestion for now.
We are also learning that the deposition of 10Be actually depends on the weather [it has to be transported with the wind from low-latitudes to the poles] and that that is one of reasons for variation between ice cores. My point is that as we learn more about these processes, the old ‘everybody knows’ picture is failing.

September 18, 2009 4:15 pm

Leif Svalgaard (14:39:27) :
Ulric Lyons (14:01:22) :
3.2 years = 2 Venus synodic periods, and 1.5 Mars synodic periods.
And 3.2 Earth synodic periods and exactly 1/51.5 of Uranus’…
I think you will find you are talking Neptune`s orbit with that figure. I am talking synodic periods and not orbits for good reason.

rbateman
September 18, 2009 4:22 pm

Leif Svalgaard (10:50:35) :
The two datasets are trying to tell you that there is a middle ground where the Sun does not move the temperature (or is a weak factor). If you went and snipped out the area that doesn’t correlate, you’d end up with hysterisis levels, high & low.
Then you have something you can work with. You would be able to find any additional signal in the parts that move the temperature, and you’d also have the removed part to disect.
Break the problem down into it’s relevant parts.

Pascvaks
September 18, 2009 4:42 pm

“Ref. Leif Svalgaard (20:58:12) :
JFD (20:42:25) :
Leif, there was a super galactic ray influx in January 27 -29, 2009
No, there was a gamma ray burst. And it had no influence on anything, AFAIK.”
Is the GRB impact you’re referring to reflected at http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/time_lat_t01_2009.gif ?

September 18, 2009 4:46 pm

rbateman (16:22:01) :
Break the problem down into it’s relevant parts.
‘Relevant’ is cherry picking. Now, I’m not in this business, really, and would like to see a true believer do what you suggest. What I’m saying is that the way the looks on its face, there is not much there.
Ulric Lyons (16:15:57) :
I think you will find you are talking Neptune`s orbit with that figure. I am talking synodic periods and not orbits for good reason.
I have to apologize, I was trying to make fun of you by being deliberately wrong. You see, the Sun does not about synodic periods. Those are seen from the Earth.

September 18, 2009 4:52 pm

Pascvaks (16:42:51) :
Is the GRB impact you’re referring to reflected at http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/time_lat_t01_2009.gif ?
I don’t think so, there are many other gamma ray bursts and SSWs over time and those are not coincident. Perhaps the instruments were affected by the GRB. In any event the SSW began in mid-January, well before the burst: http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/giovanni/gesNews/giovanni-provides-unique-perspective-on-sudden-stratospheric-warming-with-airs-data

jorgekafkazar
September 18, 2009 4:52 pm

Leif Svalgaard (09:09:37) : “…I lived many years in Texas and I can tell from personal experience [friends and neighbors] that the percentage I quoted is not far off…”
Leif-san, Texas is Bible belt country. Your friends & neighbors there are not a representative sample. But if I were in trouble and needed help, I’d rather be there than in a more cosmopolitan, scientifically astute area.
BTW, I’m glad you’re here, Leif.

September 18, 2009 5:41 pm

jorgekafkazar (16:52:05) :
Leif-san, Texas is Bible belt country.
This was, of course, taken into account when extrapolating from the 75% I found in TX to the whole nation 🙂

September 18, 2009 6:06 pm

” tallbloke (15:03:26) :
Leif Svalgaard (14:39:27) :
Ulric Lyons (14:01:22) :
3.2 years = 2 Venus synodic periods, and 1.5 Mars synodic periods.
And 3.2 Earth synodic periods and exactly 1/51.5 of Uranus’…
Ulric, wait ’til you see Ian Wilson’s forthcoming paper. The resonance periods are tieing up nicely. Leif likes to ridicule those of us who have an interest in these things, but then, we like to ridicule his passe petty positivism and his dilletante deprecatory denialism of planetary positional paradiddles, so fair’s fair.”
The simple test is to see if the alignment dates are synchronous with the observed phenomena; 31/10/2006, 20/08/2003, 08/06/2000, 28/03/1997, 15/01/1994, 04/11/1990, 25/08/1987.

September 18, 2009 6:13 pm

” Leif Svalgaard (16:46:25) :
Ulric Lyons (16:15:57) :
I think you will find you are talking Neptune`s orbit with that figure. I am talking synodic periods and not orbits for good reason.
I have to apologize, I was trying to make fun of you by being deliberately wrong. You see, the Sun does not about synodic periods. Those are seen from the Earth.”
Synodic periods can be seen from Mars, Venus, and even the ring of Uranus.

September 18, 2009 6:20 pm

The reliability of the solar proxy records is further backed up by overlaying the 14C record over the 10Be record. There is an extremely close match.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/51
To my knowledge 14C is not affected in the same manner as 10Be by volcanic activity, so one would assume these allowances have been made.. similar to the geometric allowances made for 14C.
There may be proxy records (in some places) that the solar cycle (magnetic field) persisted through grand minima and that those levels might match current solar cycle minimums, but do they match the levels recorded at solar max, once again we need to be virulent in obtaining the WHOLE truth.

September 18, 2009 6:23 pm

That should have read “vigilant”

Adam from Kansas
September 18, 2009 6:36 pm

Here’s one thing I can tell you, a lot of Creationists are skeptical of AGW, the ICR, the foremost organization researching evidences of Creationism, have taken the side that AGW as the government puts it simply does not exist. They have come to these views through 24 hour science which I believe is being done properly.
It looks like Leif wouldn’t now want to associate with the ICR and its creationist research, much like how he doesn’t want to associate with the people who think on the same lines on Sun-Climate relationship as Archibald and some others despite those people believing in evolutionary theory. Too much emphasis on seeing the public school system as bastions of truth I suppose.
Just to note I thought of evolution being true back during some of my years in elementary school, I managed to snap out of it 🙂

September 18, 2009 7:49 pm

Geoff Sharp (18:20:29) :
To my knowledge 14C is not affected in the same manner as 10Be by volcanic activity,
But both records are affected by climate. Of course, it is not the case that every little wiggle is due to volcanoes, just that things are more complex than at first sight.
There may be proxy records (in some places) that the solar cycle (magnetic field) persisted through grand minima
Those are the same proxies as the ones you cite, when looked at with 1-year time resolution. So, not some other proxies in some places.

September 18, 2009 8:00 pm

Geoff Sharp (18:20:29) :
There may be proxy records (in some places) that the solar cycle (magnetic field) persisted through grand minima
Here is the 10Be record through the 17th century:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle-10Be-Maunder-Min.png
At the left is the power spectrum with a peak at 12.5 years. It is likely that the depth of the rightmost dip starting in 1693 is influenced by the eruption of Hekla that year (it was one of Hekla’s most destructive in the last 1000 years)
There is by now no doubt that the solar cycle persisted through all of the Grand Minima we have observed.

September 18, 2009 8:02 pm

Adam from Kansas (18:36:32) :
Too much emphasis on seeing the public school system as bastions of truth I suppose
Lately, the public school system seems to have failed [and was certainly wasted on you 🙂 as you explain]

rbateman
September 18, 2009 8:23 pm

Leif Svalgaard (16:46:25) :
You have to pick the fruit off the tree to eat it, and you have to break complex problems down to solve them. Your use of ‘cherry picking’ would have us go about throwing away everything that needs separating, like noise from signal, or multiple overlain signals.
I can see you have little to no interest in climate.

1 4 5 6 7 8 14