The missing sunspots: Is this the big chill?

Pa ElGrande

The missing sunspots: Is this the big chill? Monday, 27 April 2009

Could the Sun play a greater role in recent climate change than has been believed? Climatologists had dismissed the idea and some solar scientists have been reticent about it because of its connections with those who those who deny climate change. But now the speculation has grown louder because of what is happening to our Sun. No living scientist has seen it behave this way. There are no sunspots.

The disappearance of sunspots happens every few years, but this time it’s gone on far longer than anyone expected – and there is no sign of the Sun waking up. “This is the lowest we’ve ever seen. We thought we’d be out of it by now, but we’re not,” says Marc Hairston of the University of Texas. And it’s not just the sunspots that are causing concern. There is also the so-called solar wind – streams of particles the Sun pours out – that is at its weakest since records began. In addition, the Sun’s magnetic axis is tilted to an unusual degree. “This is the quietest Sun we’ve seen in almost a century,” says NASA solar scientist David Hathaway. But this is not just a scientific curiosity. It could affect everyone on Earth and force what for many is the unthinkable: a reappraisal of the science behind recent global warming.

contd.

The Sunspot Number

Scientists track solar cycles by counting sunspots -- cool planet-sized areas on the Sun where intense magnetic loops poke through the star's visible surface.

Counting sunspots is not as straightforward as it sounds. Suppose you looked at the Sun through a pair of (properly filtered) low power binoculars -- you might be able to see two or three large spots. An observer peering through a high-powered telescope might see 10 or 20. A powerful space-based observatory could see even more -- say, 50 to 100. Which is the correct sunspot number?

There are two official sunspot numbers in common use. The first, the daily "Boulder Sunspot Number," is computed by the NOAA Space Environment Center using a formula devised by Rudolph Wolf in 1848:

R=k (10g+s),

where R is the sunspot number; g is the number of sunspot groups on the solar disk; s is the total number of individual spots in all the groups; and k is a variable scaling factor (usually <1) that accounts for observing conditions and the type of telescope (binoculars, space telescopes, etc.). Scientists combine data from lots of observatories -- each with its own k factor -- to arrive at a daily value.

contd.

Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 0 days
2010 total: 2 days (4%)
2009 total: 260 days (71%)
Since 2004: 772 days
Typical Solar Min: 485 days

Redsunset

I started a thread last year on this if you have not already seen it.enjoy

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055544236&highlight=dead+mini

snow ghost

This is apparently the calm before the next Big solar storm that Nasa were predicting for this year.

When it arrives Ireland's night sky may well be illuminated with the Northern Lights like never before. :eek:

This is an interesting NASA article on it:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10mar_stormwarning.htm

Strasser

snow ghost wrote: »

This is an interesting NASA article on it:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10mar_stormwarning.htm

I think you will find that this story has been overtaken by events. It was written in 2006 since when until recently the sun has been quieter than it has been for many many years and the predictions are now that this cycle will not have such intense peaks in activity as previously forecast.

snow ghost

Strasser wrote: »

I think you will find that this story has been overtaken by events. It was written in 2006 since when until recently the sun has been quieter than it has been for many many years and the predictions are now that this cycle will not have such intense peaks in activity as previously forecast.

True Strasser, that said it is fairly unpredictable, like the snow in Ireland, so I prefer to err on the side of the extreme happening.

That NASA article gives a nice overview.

snow ghost

"Professor Richard Harrison from the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire, told the Mail Online: 'The Sun's magnetic field is all over the place and looks like a writhing plate of spaghetti.
'Huge clouds of energy escape from time to time in coronal mass ejections.
'These can carry a billion tonnes of solar material into space at nearly a million miles per hour. Such events can disable satellites, cause power grid failures on Earth and disrupt communications.'

He added: 'Our Sun is just coming out of a deep minimum, which is a period of very little activity. Whether this means we will have an unusual maximum in 2012, we just don't know.

'What is certain is the chances of general disruption will be far higher during this period and could disrupt coverage of the Olympics.'

Professor Harrison said missions like the SDO couldn't prevent solar activity, but could help us to prepare for them.
Companies could be warned in advance to switch off vital satellite circuits and technology systems could be improved on Earth.

'It's like predicting the rain,' Professor Harrison said.
'You can't stop it but if you know it's coming you can put an umbrella up.'"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1248012/Solar-storms-disrupt-2012-Olympics-warn-scientists-new-satellite-help-predict-whats-coming.html

Redsunset

That 2006 article has since been retracted by David Hathaway, Ph.D., NASA Heliospheric Team Leader.

It's all in the thread,
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055544236&highlight=dead+mini



Don't mind the latest sensationlist media publications.




What Happened to 2006 Predictions
of Huge Solar Cycle 24?

ISN’T IT ESPECIALLY STRANGE FOR YOU BECAUSE THREE YEARS AGO, ALL THE PHYSICS OF THE SUN THAT YOU AND NASA AND EVERYBODY ELSE WAS USING WERE ANTICIPATING THAT THIS COULD BE THE BIGGEST SOLAR MAXIMUM ON RECORD?

There were indications back then. I am writing a paper – it’s on my computer as we speak (laughs) – basically saying that I made a big mistake – myself and Bob Wilson – when we wrote a paper in 2006, suggesting Solar Cycle 24 was going to be a huge cycle based on conditions at that time. The problem we had with our prediction was that it was based on a method that assumes that we’re near sunspot cycle minimum.

We had just previously gone through three or four sunspot cycles that had been only ten years long each, so for the one in 1996 to 2006, it seemed like a reasonable assumption. But as we now know, we were off by at least two years. And if we take conditions on the sun now, it’s a completely different story. The conditions now – using even that same technique from 2006 – says that the next sunspot cycle is going to be half what we thought it was back in 2006.

Another big prediction in 2006 was based on a dynamo model – a model for how the sun produces magnetic fields - and it suggested a huge cycle.
But there also were people back at that time saying otherwise. A group of colleagues led by Leif Svalgaard, Ph.D., were looking at the sun’s polar fields and saying even at that point, the sun’s polar fields were significantly weaker than they had been before and those scientists back then predicted it was going to be a small cycle.

[SIZE=+2]How Small Will Solar Cycle 24 Be? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]I’ve come around to that view now. I think there is little doubt in my mind now that we’re in for a small cycle. The big question now is how small? I think most of us are predicting small cycles. I think even the techniques I’m using now are suggesting HALF the size of the last three or four solar cycles, but my fear is that even that might be too big just from the fact that it’s taken so long for this Solar Cycle 24 to really get off the ground and start producing sunspots.
I have no doubt at this point that it’s going to be a little cycle. My current prediction is that it’s going to be about half of what we’ve seen in the last four solar cycles or so. But in my gut, I feel it’s going to be smaller than that! (laughs) It’s just so slow in taking off and the indicators that we see – both the polar fields and the geomagnetic indicators are lower than anything we’ve seen before.

[SIZE=+2]No More 2012 Solar Maximum for Cycle 24?[/SIZE]

ISN’T IT IRONIC THAT THERE HAS BEEN ALL THIS ANTICIPATION OF 2012 BECAUSE OF THE CLOSING DOWN OF THE MAYAN CALENDAR AND THE EXPECTATION THAT POSSIBLY SOMETHING ON OR FROM THE SUN OR RELATED TO THE SUN MIGHT IMPACT THE EARTH DURING SOME LARGE SOLAR MAXIMUM IN 2012. BUT RIGHT NOW, DOES IT SEEM LIKE THE SUN WILL BE ESPECIALLY QUIET IN 2012?

Indeed. In fact, when we came out with the prediction of a big cycle back in 2006, I got lots of emails from folks. If it was going to be such a big cycle, it should have started in 2006 so by 2012, it ought to be at its peak.
And at this point, it looks like, ‘No, I don’t think so!’ (laughs) Not at all! I think it’s going to be a small peak and it’s not going to be in 2012. It’s going to be in 2013. So, I think any connection that people might try to make between solar activity and the end of the Mayan calendar cycle is problematic.

IN FACT, IN 2012, THE SUN MIGHT BE THE QUIETEST IT HAS BEEN AT A SOLAR MAXIMUM FOR 130 OR MORE YEARS?

Yes, indeed! It might be. The Mayans never said there were going to be disasters. It’s just that it’s the end of that cycle and you start another one.