Still no sunspots...

[Overdog]

Has anyone else been following this?

 

Sun goes longer than normal without producing sunspots

 

"It continues to be dead," said Saku Tsuneta with the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, program manager for the Hinode solar mission. "That's a small concern, a very small concern."

[/Quote]

 

AND

 

Tsuneta said solar physicists aren't like weather forecasters; They can't predict the future. They do have the ability to observe, however, and they have observed a longer-than-normal period of solar inactivity. In the past, they observed that the sun once went 50 years without producing sunspots. That period coincided with a little ice age on Earth that lasted from 1650 to 1700.

[/Quote]

[Turtle]

I have followed it. I visit the SOHO page just about every day, Solar and Heliospheric Observatory Homepage, as well as SpaceWeather.com, SpaceWeather.com -- News and information about meteor showers, solar flares, auroras, and near-Earth asteroids, where the Sun's activity ,or lack thereof, is a frequent topic. Not many like to say, and even fewer like to hear, that we are entering anothing such minimum. :) Time will tell. :eplane: :eek_big:

[Overdog]

Yes, I followed this for several months after I first heard about it, then lost track of it, but that was 5 or 6 months ago. I experienced "concern, a very small concern" myself when I saw the article today saying everyone was still waiting....

[InfiniteNow]

Not many like to say, and even fewer like to hear, that we are entering anothing such minimum.

Can you give us a for instance? Who exactly doesn't like to say or hear these things?

 

 

If I read into your words, you're referring to those who discuss global climate change and it's relation to human activity. If I've read correctly, you should read the following:

 

Nature - No solar hiding place for greenhouse sceptics

 

 

Full article here --> http://www.auger.org.ar/Auger_Sur/PDF/Nature%20July%202007.pdf

[TheBigDog]

If I read into your words, you're referring to those who discuss global climate change and it's relation to human activity. If I've read correctly, you should read the following:

 

Nature - No solar hiding place for greenhouse sceptics

 

 

Full article here --> http://www.auger.org.ar/Auger_Sur/PDF/Nature%20July%202007.pdf

I think that the claim of sun activity being the cause of global warming, and the claim of a lack of sun activity holding a potential for global cooling are very different. The study went back 100 years and showed no correlation between warming and sun activity. The claim of the mini-ice-age being timed with a fifty year gap in sun activity has no analog in the studied time period.

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

Okay...

 

From a very very high level, yes, the sun drives climate. However, we cannot forget about AGW just for that reason, and I call your attention to the following:

 

 

<repeated due to respectability of source>

Nature - No solar hiding place for greenhouse sceptics

 

Sun not to blame for global warming.

 

A study has confirmed that there are no grounds to blame the Sun for recent global warming. The analysis shows that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays

 

 

NATURE article in .pdf --> http://www.auger.org.ar/Auger_Sur/PDF/Nature%20July%202007.pdf

 

This paper is the final nail in the coffin for people who would like to make the Sun responsible for present global warming.

 

 

</end repeated article. begin new citations>

 

 

 

An additional problem is that the temperature change leads, not lags, solar activity changes earlier in the 20th century.

 

 

 

Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun.

 

Global Warming -- Research Issues

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've found a wealth of knowledge at the following, so perhaps you can catch yourself up too!

 

 

 

RealClimate - Recent Warming But No Trend in Galactic Cosmic Rays

RealClimate - A critique on Veizer’s Celestial Climate Driver

RealClimate - The lure of solar forcing

RealClimate - Did the Sun hit record highs over the last few decades?

RealClimate - Another study on solar influence

 

 

[T]here is not much evidence pointing to the sun being responsible for the warming since the 1950s.

[Turtle]

Has anyone else been following this?

 

Sun goes longer than normal without producing sunspots

 

...Tsuneta said solar physicists aren't like weather forecasters; They can't predict the future. They do have the ability to observe, however, and they have observed a longer-than-normal period of solar inactivity. In the past, they observed that the sun once went 50 years without producing sunspots. That period coincided with a little ice age on Earth that lasted from 1650 to 1700.

 

This period, the Maunder Minimum, has spurred considerable study of other stars as well as our Sun. As yet, it is an unexplained phenomenon. :eplane:

 

..."The fact is, we still don’t understand what’s going on in our sun, how magnetic fields generate the 11-year solar cycle, or what caused the magnetic Maunder minimum," said Wright’s advisor, Geoffrey Marcy, professor of astronomy at UC Berkeley. "In particular, we don’t know how often a sun-like star falls into a Maunder minimum, or when the next minimum will occur. It could be tomorrow." ...

17th century solar oddity believed linked to global cooling is rare among nearby stars

 

Wiki on Maunder Minimum: >> Maunder Minimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Given the cause(s) of the earlier minimum is/are yet unknown, we can only watch & wait for new developments. :) :eek_big:

[Overdog]

It isn't clear to me where the suggestion that solar activity accounts for temperature increase up to 1998 is comming from. Nor do I see any suggestion that it is responsible for the modest temperature decline since 1998.

 

I think Turtle is alluding to the Maunder Minimum,

 

Maunder Minimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

and the controversy over the correlation of minimal sunspot activity with the little ice age event. It is my understanding that the earth has been recovering from this event, at least up until 1998, when the temperature peaked.

 

Is this your understanding as well?

 

EDIT: Didn't see your post, Turtle.

[InfiniteNow]

17th century solar oddity believed linked to global cooling is rare among nearby stars

Interesting.

 

 

EO News: The Sun's Chilly Impact on Earth - December 6, 2001

Shindell noted that the effects of this period of a dimmer Sun were concentrated more regionally than globally. "Global average temperature changes are small, approximately .5 to .7 degrees Fahrenheit (0.3-0.4C), but regional temperature changes are quite large." Shindell said that his climate model simulation shows the temperature changes occurring mostly because of a change in the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation (AO/NAO).

 

This oscillation is basically a hemispheric-scale see-saw of atmospheric pressure and temperature between the mid latitudes and the Arctic which modulates the strength of the westerly jet stream winds. These winds are reduced as the AO/NAO shifts in response to a dimmer sun. Because the oceans are relatively warm during the winter due to their large heat capacity, the diminished flow creates cold land temperatures by reducing the transport of warm Pacific air to America, and warm Atlantic air to Europe. During this shift, winter temperatures cooling of as much as 2 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit (1-2C).

"The period of low solar activity in the middle ages led to atmospheric changes that seem to have brought on the Little Ice Age. However, we need to keep in mind that variations in solar output have had far less impact on the Earth's recent climate than human actions," Shindell said. "The biggest catalyst for climate change today are greenhouse gases," he added.

 

 

But alas, Turtle is not likely to clarify his meaning, so I will leave it at that since I may be inadvertently hijacking the thread.

 

 

Here is a list of all of the abstracts discussed at the "Solar Variability, Earth's Climate and the Space Environment" conference held at Montana State University (which is what prompted the story referenced in the OP):

 

http://solar.physics.montana.edu/SVECSE2008/abstract_book_SVECSE2008v4.pdf

 

Papers referencing the Maunder Minimum can be found on pages 26, 46, 52, 82, and 89.

 

 

:eek_big:

[freeztar]

This is a news in brief article about the absence of sunspots. Conjectures pertaining to this absence should have their own thread, or adopt one of the numerous existing ones that deal with climate change.

 

I believe that SOHO is an excellent endeavor and is providing us with incredible data to move forward in our studies of the sun. It's interesting that sunspots have become absent. We should keep recording and strive to learn more. What does it mean?

[Moontanman]

Maybe the sun is holding back and will really kick our *** with a series of huge flares in a few months or years. Maybe the sun is going to become unstable, maybe the sun is going to freeze and we will have to go to the sun and drop a huge bomb into it to start it back up:eek_big: no wait that's another movie:doh:

[REASON]

Since the equator of the Sun rotates faster than the poles, the magnetic field lines become twisted and tangled over the 11 year cycle in which the polarity of the poles ultimately reverses. The entanglements of the magnetic field lines, or fluxons, is a factor in the development of sunspots, flares, prominences, and coronal mass ejections.

 

It appears we are at the beginning of a new 11 year cycle when the magnetic field lines are not so tangled.

 

Should we really be surprised by the lack of sunspots during this period?

 

I know the article mentions that this period of inactivity is longer than usual, but I didn't catch where it said how much longer. Does anyone know about that?

[Turtle]

...It appears we are at the beginning of a new 11 year cycle when the magnetic field lines are not so tangled.

 

Should we really be surprised by the lack of sunspots during this period?

 

I know the article mentions that this period of inactivity is longer than usual, but I didn't catch where it said how much longer. Does anyone know about that?

 

...What's going on? Hathaway explains: "We have two solar cycles in progress at the same time. Solar Cycle 24 has begun (the first new-cycle spot appeared in January 2008), but Solar Cycle 23 has not ended."

 

Strange as it sounds, this is perfectly normal. Around the time of solar minimum--i.e., now--old-cycle spots and new-cycle spots frequently intermingle. Eventually Cycle 23 will fade to zero, giving way in full to Solar Cycle 24, but not yet.

NASA - Old Solar Cycle Returns

 

What might be unusual, is that if sunspot numbers remain below the predicted rise, and/or they continue to have the magnetic orientation of cycle 23. There just so happens to have emerged a new sunspot today, and we will have to see its magnetic orientation to see if it belongs to cycle #23 or the new #24. :) On the left limb of the Sun: >> :shrug:SOHO MDI Continuum Latest Image

[Turtle]

SpaceWeather.com often features images of the Sun & its activity from amateurs. The sunspot that appeared yesterday, gave off a flare today & an amateur captured it. :)

New AR - flares!!

 

I went looking at SpaceWeather for some of the past stories I read there on solar minimum & sunspots, but as far as I have found, it's not well indexed to find by subject. :( If you know the date, you can put that in & bring up the stories from that day, but otherwise, not so much. :doh: :sun:

 

SpaceWeather.com -- News and information about meteor showers, solar flares, auroras, and near-Earth asteroids

 

PS Here is the thread on solar activity that I earlier alluded to: >> http://hypography.com/forums/space/1787-soho-page-if-you-like-watch.html

[Overdog]

NASA - Old Solar Cycle Returns

There just so happens to have emerged a new sunspot today, and we will have to see its magnetic orientation to see if it belongs to cycle #23 or the new #24. :sun: On the left limb of the Sun: >> :)SOHO MDI Continuum Latest Image

 

My understanding is the new cycle spots always start in the higher latitudes (or lower) away from the equator, while ending cycle spots appear on or near the equator, so this one still looks like the old cycle.

[Turtle]

My understanding is the new cycle spots always start in the higher latitudes (or lower) away from the equator, while ending cycle spots appear on or near the equator, so this one still looks like the old cycle.

 

Acknowledged on that clarification. :) This circumstance is reflected in the so called 'Butterfly' graphs: >> NASA/Marshall Solar Physics

[modest]

This circumstance is reflected in the so called 'Butterfly' graphs: >> NASA/Marshall Solar Physics

 

Wow. You could set your watch by that. I had no idea the cycle was so regular - fascinating.