![]()
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.


kim (05:19:17) :
amused that there might be something causal between the Sun and the Vulcanism.
That is probably only coincidence, lest the Vulcans have something to do with it [I’ll ask Spock]. What is not a coincidence is that our proxy records of solar activity are contaminated by volcanism [and weather/climate]
ralph 6:25:30
Though our eyes may be somewhat off the ball, thanks to the distraction of the dancing chimera of CO2 splendor, I’ve little doubt that the association between solar minima and earthly climate, whatever it is, is being closely watched. Without doubt, we should spend increased treasure on the examination of the question, as I’ve little doubt Leif would agree, he who has been as cost effective as anyone in addressing the question.
==============================
Leif Svalgaard (09:09:37) “I actually live in the US. 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. Also, see Mike’s post above.”
With all due respect, that is a very prejudiced and UNscientific statement.
Please stop looking down your nose of people that are probably more reasonable than you think when confronted with the evidence.
Even my mom [who is part of the “religious right”] has a deep respect for science and carbon dating and the fact that we have to speak on timescales of billions of years.
So your PRE-judgement based upon your personal observations may not be giving you any reasonable statistical results here.
If you REALLY want to spend time lamenting religious fundamentalism, then stop pointing fingers at little school marm sunday school teachers in some small town anywhere-USA church somewhere and start pointing fingers at the SCIENTISTS who should know better who are regularly doing the bidding of the deacons and presbyter/politicians of that OTHER church [and a sham church at that]: The Worldwide Church of the Great AGW!
Most Americans, right and left, are reasonable when presented with the evidence, and that is why they are skeptical of cap and trade.
But at least we are seeing progress for NCAR to admit that it ain’t just the spots, baby.
Something you have been saying for a long time, Leif.
Maybe they are listening more to your research now.
Keep up the good work and thanks for hearing me out.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Leif 7:42:07
Yes, I understand the likelihood of coincidence and understand the contamination. To be perfectly speculative I wonder if the correlation is from both responding to the same cause, which might even be from outside the solar system.
===============================
The problem of what the solar wind magnetic field [HMF] would be for very low solar activity is addressed here:
http://www.leif.org/research/Consensus%20IMF%20B.pdf
The graphs [red, blue] show the best estimates of the HMF B by two competing groups [that have in the past doubted each other’s findings, but are now agreeing]. The green curve is the best estimate of the sunspot number. The heavy curves are 11-yr running means to show the general trends. As is evident, there is a very close correspondence between these 11-yr means, as is also shown by the scatter plot between mean B (called <B>11) and the corresponding sunspot means. [The R2 should not be calculated for running means, so its presence is just because I forgot to remove it].
Anyway, <B> = 4.05 + 0.0385 <R>, which for R going to zero gives B approaching 4 nT, being the basis for the statement [confirmed by the 10Be proxy] that there is a significant solar wind even during Grand Minima, as evidenced by the observed solar modulation of cosmic rays.
tallbloke (02:49:38) :
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.”
Heh, caulk and spackle doesn’t cut it for me.
Neither does science, apparently…
“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.
In this video Piers Corbyn says he will be revealing key ingredients to his solar forecasting technique on October 28. After he does I hope certain people will cease with calling him a charlatan and snake oil salesman. Those who called him those things have revealed more about their own character than they did about his.
Geoff Sharp (23:06:13) :
I imagine it would be painstaking, 😉, to cut a one year segment of a proxy in to 365 pieces.
I haven’t read all the comments in this thread so I don’t know if anyone has brought this up :
Nir Shaviv explained that it should be expected that such a signal is not seen in the averaged monthly data they had used……1-week delay needed for the cloud nuclei to get mature. Roughly three billions of tons of water droplets suddenly disappear from the atmosphere (they remain there as vapor, which is more likely to warm the air than to cool it down).
This is showing that much more detail than a monthly or yearly average is needed to see how the sun effects earth’s weather and climate.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/04/a-link-between-the-sun-cosmic-rays-aerosols-and-liquid-water-clouds-appears-to-exist-on-a-global-scale/#more-9771
p.s. The average family has 2.19 children. Where can we find the family that has 2.19 children? Averages don’t tell the whole story.
Gene Nemetz (08:50:00) :
In this video Piers Corbyn says he will be revealing key ingredients to his solar forecasting technique on October 28.
Is that the day his peer-reviewed paper will be published?
Tom in Florida (06:23:20) :
Al Gore’s predictions of increased hurricanes, and of an ice free North Pole, are turning out to be antipodean (the opposite of what is really happening). I don’t know how he will cope with that. He didn’t cope well with not getting elected president. Some say, and I agree, that his global warming crusade is a direct result of not being able to cope with losing the election in 2000. Dennis Miller thinks he has “Marianas Trench dad issues”, that his Florida 2000 recount and now his Messiah complex over global warming are all tied somehow to trying to please his father, even though his father is dead.
Could we see this man come apart at the seems as his predictions blow up in his face over the next few years? Will he then withdraw even further from reality while feigning consequentially?
Part of me actually feels sorry for him.
kim (07:55:36) :
I wonder if the correlation is from both responding to the same cause, which might even be from outside the solar system.
I see where the Vulcans come in…
Leif Svalgaard (07:42:07) :
“What is not a coincidence is that our proxy records of solar activity are contaminated by volcanism [and weather/climate]”
I thought the science was settled…
(sorry couldn’t resist) 🙂
savethesharks (07:51:44) :
So your PRE-judgement based upon your personal observations may not be giving you any reasonable statistical results here.
There is this Gallop-poll that quotes 44-49%, but my statement was simply a response to:
Mark (05:44:30) :
“do an informal poll of your own. I bet you’ll find less than 1 out of 100 believes it.”
And I did just that.
Leif Svalgaard (09:11:07) :
I don’t feel like arguing with you about Piers Corbyn again.
Gene Nemetz (09:30:53) :
I don’t feel like arguing with you about Piers Corbyn again.
No argument, just answer the question.
Ed (09:27:08) :
“What is not a coincidence is that our proxy records of solar activity are contaminated by volcanism [and weather/climate]”
I thought the science was settled…
(sorry couldn’t resist) 🙂
Ah, but you didn’t take the Vulcans into account…
“ralph (02:48:19) :
>>>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.
No. It is a political, social, technological and economic issue.”
—
I was referring to the First Amendment, so no, it is a legal issue.
It seems interesting to me that you have pointed to European history to demonstrate that society “only became industrial and technical once we had unshackled ourselves from from the primitive idea that one tattered old book contained the font of all knowledge.”
May I suggest European history instead demonstrates that State churches are very bloody businesses, and that the free excercise of religion by the individual in society is the precursor to both political freedom and economic prosperity.
To be specific and define terms, a religion in general addresses issues of creation, sin, redemption, and the final destiny of the creation. Therefore, any gov’t that concerns itself in these issues is establishing a religion, and prohibiting the free excercise thereof.
Besides, the tenth amendment clearly shows that cosmology is none of the Federal gov’t’s blasted business anyway.
Zeke the Sneak (10:19:02) :
cosmology is none of the Federal gov’t’s blasted business anyway.
Is science? Most science is funded by the gov. Should that funding stop?
Zeke the Sneak (10:19:02) :
cosmology is none of the Federal gov’t’s blasted business anyway.
Is science? Most science is funded by the gov. Should that funding stop?
Sorry, Leif, while I defer to you in science matters, I don’t agree that the federal gov’t has any business running a public science industry. Tenth Amendment:
I realize we’ve gotten so far away from the original intent of the Constitution that we can’t get back. But that’s what causes these problems.
Smokey (10:45:38) :
I don’t agree that the federal gov’t has any business running a public science industry. Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So, should the States? or the People? The States don’t, and the People don’t much [it used to be different, with wealthy individuals funding much science: Yale, Lick, Yerkes, Carnegie, etc, to take examples from my own science]. Today some science is so expensive [billions] that this type of funding has dried up [with some exceptions: e.g. Keck.]. Society funds science because science has turned out to be useful to society. I’m all for private funding. Go to my website and fling some funds, please.
Yes, it should stop.
If not, then the NSF should be broken into 20 different organizations, with a wall of separation between them, so that science can once again have the benefit of blind experimentation.
Zeke the Sneak (11:13:45) :
Yes, it should stop.
science can once again have the benefit of blind experimentation.
Groping in the dark rarely leads to progress. And if it happens, it would bode ill for this country, sinking to the level of Zimbabwe, perhaps.
“Is that the day his peer-reviewed paper will be published?”
And peer reviewed by Hansen, Mann, Santer, Jones, Steig, et.al.?
Guys, come on, give Leify a break. Being a solar physicist and spending his life on Blogs trying to prove everybody that only he and his methods are right must make him very desperate.
Now he’s asking for private funding, what do you need the funding for Leif?
You’ve miserably failed to predict the sunspots and suns activity in general and aren’t you like 100yo or something? Don’t stress cause you might miss this solar maximum…