![latest_512_4500[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/latest_512_45001.jpg?resize=512%2C512&quality=83)
See: BREAKING – major AAS solar announcement: Sun’s Fading Spots Signal Big Drop in Solar Activity
From NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab website:
Since 1611, humans have recorded the comings and goings of black spots on the sun. The number of these sunspots waxes and wanes over approximately an 11-year cycle — more sunspots generally mean more activity and eruptions on the sun and vice versa. The number of sunspots can change from cycle to cycle, and 2008 saw the longest and weakest solar minimum since scientists have been monitoring the sun with space-based instruments.
Observations have shown, however, that magnetic effects on Earth due to the sun, effects that cause the aurora to appear, did not go down in synch with the cycle of low magnetism on the sun. Now, a paper in Annales Geophysicae that appeared on May 16, 2011 reports that these effects on Earth did in fact reach a minimum — indeed they attained their lowest levels of the century — but some eight months later. The scientists believe that factors in the speed of the solar wind, and the strength and direction of the magnetic fields embedded within it, helped produce this anomalous low.
“Historically, the solar minimum is defined by sunspot number,” says space weather scientist Bruce Tsurutani at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., who is first author on the paper. “Based on that, 2008 was identified as the period of solar minimum. But the geomagnetic effects on Earth reached their minimum quite some time later, in 2009. So we decided to look at what caused the geomagnetic minimum.”

Geomagnetic effects basically amount to any magnetic changes on Earth due to the sun, and they’re measured by magnetometer readings on the surface of the Earth. Such effects are usually harmless, with the only obvious sign of their presence being the appearance of auroras near the poles. However, in extreme cases, they can cause power grid failures on Earth or induce dangerous currents in long pipelines, so it is valuable to know how the geomagnetic effects vary with the sun.
Three things help determine how much energy from the sun is transferred to Earth’s magnetosphere from the solar wind: the speed of the solar wind, the strength of the magnetic field outside Earth’s bounds (known as the interplanetary magnetic field) and which direction it is pointing, since a large southward component is necessary to connect successfully to Earth’s magnetosphere and transfer energy. The team — which also included Walter Gonzalez and Ezequiel Echer of the Brazilian National Institute for Space Research in São José dos Campos, Brazil — examined each component in turn.
First, the researchers noted that in 2008 and 2009, the interplanetary magnetic field was the lowest it had been in the history of the space age. This was an obvious contribution to the geomagnetic minimum. But since the geomagnetic effects didn’t drop in 2008, it could not be the only factor.
To examine the speed of the solar wind, they turned to NASA’s Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE), which is in interplanetary space outside the Earth’s magnetosphere, approximately 1 million miles toward the sun. The ACE data showed that the speed of the solar wind stayed high during the sunspot minimum. Only later did it begin a steady decline, correlating to the timing of the decline in geomagnetic effects.
The next step was to understand what caused this decrease. The team found a culprit in something called coronal holes. Coronal holes are darker, colder areas within the sun’s outer atmosphere. Fast solar wind shoots out the center of coronal holes at speeds up to 500 miles per second, but wind flowing out of the sides slows down as it expands into space.
“Usually, at solar minimum, the coronal holes are at the sun’s poles,” says Giuliana de Toma, a solar scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research whose research on this topic helped provide insight for this paper. “Therefore, Earth receives wind from only the edges of these holes, and it’s not very fast. But in 2007 and 2008, the coronal holes were not confined to the poles as normal.”

Those coronal holes lingered at low latitudes to the end of 2008. Consequently, the center of the holes stayed firmly pointed towards Earth, sending fast solar wind in Earth’s direction. Only as they finally appeared closer to the poles in 2009 did the speed of the solar wind at Earth begin to slow down. And, of course, the geomagnetic effects and sightings of the aurora along with it.
Coronal holes seem to be responsible for minimizing the southward direction of the interplanetary magnetic field as well. The solar wind’s magnetic fields oscillate on the journey from the sun to Earth. These fluctuations are known as Alfvén waves. The wind coming out of the centers of the coronal holes has large fluctuations, meaning that the southward magnetic component – like that in all the directions — is fairly large. The wind that comes from the edges, however, has smaller fluctuations, and comparably smaller southward components. So, once again, coronal holes at lower latitudes would have a better chance of connecting with Earth’s magnetosphere and causing geomagnetic effects, while mid-latitude holes would be less effective.
Working together, these three factors — low interplanetary magnetic field strength, combined with slower solar wind speed and smaller magnetic fluctuations due to coronal hole placement — create the perfect environment for a geomagnetic minimum.
Knowing what situations cause and suppress intense geomagnetic activity on Earth is a step toward better predicting when such events might happen. To do so well, Tsurutani points out, requires focusing on the tight connection between such effects and the complex physics of the sun. “It’s important to understand all of these features better,” he says. “To understand what causes low interplanetary magnetic fields and what causes coronal holes in general. This is all part of the solar cycle. And all part of what causes effects on Earth.”
Written by Karen C. Fox
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
Ken,
need help with using the search function in your browser??
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-181&rn=news.xml&rst=3032
Krishna Gans
June 14, 2011 at 1:55 pm
The “big question” by alarmists is, how can it get warmer on earth during a solar minimum ?
###
No need to answer this. In the greenie mind, weakened solar activity is ‘hiding’ the warming.
The warming is still there, we just can’t measure it. “Don’t be fooled by you’re limited uneducated experiences, trust our models. We’re scientists”
Ken
June 15, 2011 at 7:05 am
###
sheesh, took me less then 15 seconds. Maybe you should join the modern world, before the moonbats take it away.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/solar-minima.html
Ken!
I used this wonderful search service, called Google, and found this.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/jpl/news/solar20110614_prt.htm
Brewster, you are proof that a little intelligence is a dangerous thing. You have very little so fortunately you can’t endanger anyone here!:]
Wucash, you and Brewster should start a know-nothing club! You CAGW fanatics will never give up on minimizing the importance of the sun, which is , as Richard Feynman always said, ‘Not even wrong’! Wake Up and look at the big light in the sky, buddy! Maybe it’ll give you an idea!
Martin Perry says:
June 15, 2011 at 4:16 am
Think about it – are we not entering a period of heavy volcanic / seismic activity? (Eritrea, Iceland and Chile all erupting at present) Japanese / New Zealand earthquakes etc
My pet theory is that the reduced magnetic flux from the sun causes global distortion (Iron core etc)
We shall see!”
Thats an interesting concept, and yes, given the Iron core of the Earth, it would be plausible that changes in magnetic forces of the Sun could have a dramati affect on the Earth’s magnetic fields and hence the molton Iron core which in turn could increase volcanic and geologic activity.
This morning, I was chatting with an acquaintance. She’s a AGW fanatic, who sees everything (warm days, cold days, drought, rain, earthquakes, etc) as signs of manmade global warming. We’ve argued many times. She usually reacts the same way a religious fanatic does if you question their religion.
So, I could not resist asking her if she’d heard about the vanishing-sunspots story. She had, and to my abject horror, cited it as further proof of global warming;
“With all the CO2 we’re putting in the air, of course this would happen! CO2 is used to extinguish fires, you know, and the sun is basically just a big ball of fire in the sky, so putting all this CO2 in the sky is of course going to make the sun start to go out!”
She was, I believe, dead serious. I could not reply. I just stared, open mouthed, as she walked away.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/06/15/state/n100842D71.DTL&tsp=1
Expect more and more of this sort of thing as the cooling proceeds and the Second Great Age Of Migrations commences.
And the wild beasts set upon the formerly civilized lands, imbuing the people with terror.
Dell from Michigan says:
June 15, 2011 at 12:11 pm
it would be plausible that changes in magnetic forces of the Sun could have a dramatic effect on the Earth’s magnetic fields and hence the molton Iron core which in turn could increase volcanic and geologic activity.
No, this does not happen. The Earth’s magnetic field in the core is a hundred thousand times stronger than the Sun’s magnetic field.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 15, 2011 at 2:18 am
There is now peer reviewed papers showing the link between solar output caused by planetary movements that control the solar path around the SSB….the tide is turning slowly.
There have always been such papers. Here is one of my favorites: http://www.leif.org/EOS/See-and-Meteor-Theory-of-Sunspots.pdf with plates: http://www.leif.org/EOS/See-and-Meteor-Theory-of-Sunspots-Figures.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 15, 2011 at 10:23 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
June 15, 2011 at 2:18 am
There is now peer reviewed papers showing the link between solar output caused by planetary movements that control the solar path around the SSB….the tide is turning slowly.
There have always been such papers. Here is a more recent one of the same ilk:
http://ecrs2010.utu.fi/done/posters/session1/1.62_Stozhkov.pdf
meemoe_uk says:
June 14, 2011 at 11:21 pm
It took NASA and the AAS long enough to catch up with us on this solar minimum thing. How about Leif lambasting these institutions for being so very slow to catch up with our informal group?
Well, many here have labeled the L&P finding as bad science [and worse], so not everybody is on the bandwagon. But, generally, scientists are extremely conservative and want overwhelming evidence before accepting anything. When such evidence arises, scientists can [and often do] change their mind turning on a dime. This may not have happened with L&P yet, but give it another two years of decreasing sunspot magnetic fields and you’ll see rapid acceptance. Such conservatism is a good things.
aaron says:
June 14, 2011 at 3:31 pm
Leif, only if the activity was similarly high prior to 1900.
It was. See Figure 10 of http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 15, 2011 at 10:27 pm
There have always been such papers. Here is a more recent one of the same ilk:
http://ecrs2010.utu.fi/done/posters/session1/1.62_Stozhkov.pdf
Thanks for the laugh, that paper is more like a fairy tale (maunder butterflies). But it goes to show what can slip thru the system. L&P is in the same ilk although they did get rejected the first time.
My reference was towards Wolff and Patrone which of course will never meet your standard.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 16, 2011 at 1:27 am
Thanks for the laugh, that paper is more like a fairy tale
Very typical of planetary papers
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 16, 2011 at 2:19 am
Geoff Sharp says:
June 16, 2011 at 1:27 am
Thanks for the laugh, that paper is more like a fairy tale
——————————-
Very typical of planetary papers
You are not in a position to make such a claim. Before you can criticize you must have an understanding of the basic principles involved ( a basic peer review requirement). The first step on your enlightenment path is to answer your challenge that is waiting for you HERE.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 15, 2011 at 10:34 pm
Well, many here have labeled the L&P finding as bad science [and worse]
That should display a red flag for you….the initial paper failed the peer review process and was criticized by Hathaway and others. How did the L&P paper become “published” considering the lack of proper science?
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 15, 2011 at 10:23 pm
Here is one of my favorites: http://www.leif.org/EOS/See-and-Meteor-Theory-of-Sunspots.pdf with plates: http://www.leif.org/EOS/See-and-Meteor-Theory-of-Sunspots-Figures.pdf
Nice ones to add to my history of science collection, thanks Leif. Any more Planetary papers from the old days? Could you stick them all in one directory?
Geoff Sharp says:
June 16, 2011 at 6:50 am
Before you can criticize you must have an understanding of the basic principles involved
As you, one can always laugh.
The basic principles will have to be described, explained, and made plausible first. All you have is unquantified hand-waving and eye-balling. No principles at all.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 16, 2011 at 7:01 am
the initial paper failed the peer review process and was criticized by Hathaway and others. How did the L&P paper become “published” considering the lack of proper science?
The initial paper failed because of its short time span, not because of problems with measurements, account keeping, or ‘bad science’. Your various accusations of Livingston’s work are unjustified and unseemly.
tallbloke says:
June 16, 2011 at 7:22 am
Nice ones to add to my history of science collection, thanks Leif. Any more Planetary papers from the old days? Could you stick them all in one directory?
Well, there are Wolf’s [ http://www.leif.org/EOS/Wolf-VIII.pdf ] and more. But it is not worth my effort to collect them all; I’ll delegate that task to the enthusiasts.
If only all main paradigms of scientific understanding were as conservative and slow to accept new ideas as that regarding the Sun. I agree with Leif. It is a good thing that L&P are still being called upon to convince the stake holders of the main Solar paradigm to shift their thinking.
If I were to postulate my own Solar theory, as Geoff does, and the likes of scientists such as Leif were to call upon me at every turn to prove it, it would be an honor. So buck up and put your nose to the grindstone. It all goes back to what you were asked to do in grade school. Show your work and stop whining about being asked to do so.
Weather not climate … maybe or maybe not related to cosmic ray flux …
Looks like I might have prematurely declared the end of the rainy season (again) in another thread a few days ago. Seeing some returns about 50 miles west of San Francisco. Little cold front moving in. Probably virga, but still …
People, after reading few comments I need to clarify few things: something that is called a solar activity of the Sun refers to the activity of the Sun’s magnetic field and not to some kind of increase of thermonuclear reaction inside of the Sun ( which is pretty much constant). If we see more dark spots on the surface of the Sun, this we call a high solar activity period, mostly due to the increased emission of charged particles (protons, electrons) escaping from the areas with the dark spots (these areas have a weak magnetic field). In terms of energy flux from the sun to the earth, the higher the solar activity is -> ie. the more black dots are on the sun, the less visible light falls on earth. You can imagine a light bulb – if you draw black dots on it, the less light you’ll have in the room. So in this terms, The more black dots are on the Sun, the less visible light will come to earth thus I’d naively expect less energy coming to the Earth from Sun ->ie. the colder is going to be on Earth. It is therefore more interesting to raise a question, how it is possible, that in the decade of low Solar activity (when we had the maximum of visible light energy coming to earth) we have a clear decline in the Global temperatures? Shouldn’t the global temperatures rise even faster, according to the AGW theory?
ClimateRealist says:
June 16, 2011 at 12:22 pm
ie. the more black dots are on the sun, the less visible light falls on earth.
The sunspots are surrounded by enhanced magnetic fields that actually provide about twice the light the spot takes away, so the net effect is more light.
Update – the returns were bogus. There were no clouds in that location at the time of the reading. Dry cold front.