Monday, April 6, 2009

How Low Can It Go? Sun Plunges Into The Quietest Solar Minimum In A Century

The sunspot cycle is behaving a little like the stock market. Just when you think it has hit bottom, it goes even lower.

The year 2008 was a bear. There were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year's 366 days (73 percent). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days. Prompted by these numbers, some observers suggested that the solar cycle had hit bottom in 2008.

Maybe not. Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower. As of March 31st, there were no sunspots on 78 of the year's 90 days (87 percent).

The sunspot cycle from 1995 to the present. The jagged curve traces actual sunspot counts. Smooth curves are fits to the data and one forecaster's predictions of future activity. (Credit: David Hathaway, NASA/MSFC)

It adds up to one inescapable conclusion: "We're experiencing a very deep solar minimum," says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

"This is the quietest sun we've seen in almost a century," agrees forecaster David Hathaway of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala.

Quiet suns come along every 11 years or so. It's a natural part of the sunspot cycle, discovered by German astronomer Heinrich Schwabe in the mid-1800s. Sunspots are planet-sized islands of magnetism on the surface of the sun, and they are sources of solar flares, coronal mass ejections, and intense UV radiation. Plotting sunspot counts, Schwabe saw that peaks of solar activity were always followed by valleys of relative calm—a clockwork pattern that has held true for more than 200 years.

The current solar minimum is part of that pattern. In fact, it's right on time. But is it supposed to be this quiet?

Measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft reveal a 20 percent drop in solar wind pressure since the mid-1990s—the lowest point since such measurements began in the 1960s. The solar wind helps keep galactic cosmic rays out of the inner solar system. With the solar wind flagging, more cosmic rays penetrate the solar system, resulting in increased health hazards for astronauts. Weaker solar wind also means fewer geomagnetic storms and auroras on Earth.

Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft have also shown that the sun's brightness has dimmed by 0.02 percent at visible wavelengths and a whopping 6 percent at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996. These changes are not enough to reverse global warming, but there are some other, noticeable side-effects.

Earth's upper atmosphere is heated less by the sun and it is therefore less "puffed up." Satellites in Earth orbit experience less atmospheric drag, extending their operational lifetimes. That’s the good news. Unfortunately, space junk also remains in orbit longer, posing an increased threat to useful satellites.

Finally, radio telescopes are recording the dimmest "radio sun" since 1955. After World War II, astronomers began keeping records of the sun's brightness at radio wavelengths, particularly 10.7 cm. Some researchers believe that the lessening of radio emissions during this solar minimum is an indication of weakness in the sun's global magnetic field. No one is certain, however, because the source of these long-monitored radio emissions is not fully understood.

All these lows have sparked a debate about whether the ongoing minimum is extreme or just an overdue market correction following a string of unusually intense solar maxima.

"Since the Space Age began in the 1950s, solar activity has been generally high," notes Hathaway. "Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years. We're just not used to this kind of deep calm."

Deep calm was fairly common a hundred years ago. The solar minima of 1901 and 1913, for instance, were even longer than what we're experiencing now. To match those minima in depth and longevity, the current minimum will have to last at least another year.

In a way, the calm is exciting, says Pesnell. "For the first time in history, we're getting to observe a deep solar minimum." A fleet of spacecraft — including the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), the twin probes of the Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory (STEREO), and several other satellites — are all studying the sun and its effects on Earth. Using technology that didn't exist 100 years ago, scientists are measuring solar winds, cosmic rays, irradiance and magnetic fields and finding that solar minimum is much more interesting than anyone expected.

Modern technology cannot, however, predict what comes next. Competing models by dozens of solar physicists disagree, sometimes sharply, on when this solar minimum will end and how big the next solar maximum will be. The great uncertainty stems from one simple fact: No one fully understands the underlying physics of the sunspot cycle.

Pesnell believes sunspot counts should pick up again soon, "possibly by the end of the year," to be followed by a solar maximum of below-average intensity in 2012 or 2013. But like other forecasters, he knows he could be wrong. Bull or bear? Stay tuned for updates. via

11 comments:

Usage May Vary April 9, 2009 5:52 PM  

you should be embarassed by this shitty reporting. Honestly, comparing a year to a quarter for sake of fearmongering?

Okay, how about this. Out of the last 1 day, there was no sunspots. Thus, there was 100% of days with no sunspots! OMG!

Really, what a horrible blogging attempt to spin facts.

Lets compare a YEAR with I don't know, a YEAR? then start talking.

Anonymous April 9, 2009 6:14 PM  

Um, Mr. Usage May Vary,

That's exactly what the chart says. It is a year-to-year comparison from 1995 to today.

Anonymous April 9, 2009 6:36 PM  

Maybe that is why Global Warming has stopped. A DECREASE in output of the sun WILL cause a DECREASE in Earth temp.

Holy crap I should work for NASA.

The Solar max over the last decade was very "strong" therefor we got warmer.

It must be the fault of the SUV's and humans.

Anonymous April 9, 2009 6:52 PM  

We know this is supposed to be a quiet period...it happens to be a tad more quiet than our laughably small data sample tells us it should be, and this is news?

Chris April 9, 2009 11:58 PM  

Not sure why people get so emotionally negative with science stories like this.

To everyone who wishes to react strongly PRO or CON, please do some research before completely forming your opinion. I don't know -- maybe GOOGLE or new scientist or SCIAM?

Because the facts here are valid and the blog post doesn't try to spin them PAST what the data says. I've talked with planetary scientists on the topic but do NOT TRUST me -- check it out.

And there is a debate in the solar science arena that credits a link to LOW SUNSPOTS with ice ages/lower temps. SUN SPOTS have been tracked since the 1600's I believe.

So this is a relevant story.

It's a strong correlation -- doesn't imply causation.

Like, try, googling "Maunder Minimum" and try the 1st link.

Sheesh!

Anonymous April 10, 2009 6:52 AM  

the sun ..oh it's like so big and everything.
And there's like a guy, who doesn't like the story.
And he's like , a big baby.
Waaaaa, Waaaaaaa, waaaaaa.
Making the same sounds over and over.
The silly bunt repeatinfg himself is funny as hell.

Anonymous April 10, 2009 3:34 PM  

Really, this is just a drag for people with solar filters on their telescopes or binoculars...no spots!

Hopefully, the high-end solar observation tools will come down in price before solar max in 5-6 years.

Anonymous April 10, 2009 5:26 PM  

The reason articles like this evoke emotional opinions is due to the mixing of facts with unprovable assertions. After making lots of factual data about how often sunspots occur and that they are periodic, etc., all which is easily checkable and provable, the author throws in a line about how at some wavelength, there is a noticable decrease in output. Then the article asserts that the decrease in output at this wavelength could not affect global warming implying that the sun's total output could not be affecting global warming either. Whether or not the effect of dimming at that wavelength could be causing global warming or not is unprovable and ignores all the other effects noted in the article such as the overall size of the atmosphere and impact of gamma rays for instance. It is at best a sloppy mistake or at worst a continuation of the mindless media supported charletins that try to shut down modern society by accusing civilization of frying the planet. The ignorance is staggering... and therefore emotional.

NASA April 11, 2009 2:24 PM  

The exact same article appears here.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm

truth seeker January 5, 2010 11:03 PM  

warming sheep...the author is reporting facts...even though the author STILL misrepresents global warming as occuring....a fact the author DOESNT reveal is that the last time earth saw an extended sunspot drought was the mini ice age back in 1850...in fact temps track sunspots MUCH BETTER than they track CO2....global warming is about trillions in taxes for bankers and traders...TRUTH

Anonymous October 28, 2010 2:22 PM  

last few days our class held a similar talk on this topic and you illustrate something we haven't covered yet, appreciate that.

- Kris

  © Blogger template 'Neuronic' by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP