E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSBy Mike Wall
Space.com
The sun is surprisingly quiet at the moment, but that may be because our star is gearing up for the second phase of a one-two wallop in its 11-year activity cycle, some scientists say.
The sun has slumped to its present lull from a very fiery 2011, seeming to contradict a widely predicted 2013 peak in solar flares, sunspots and other activity for the current Solar Cycle 24. But the forecasts may be right after all, said solar physicist Dean Pesnell, of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.
"This is solar maximum," Pesnell, project scientist for NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory spacecraft, said in a statement. "But it looks different from what we expected because it is double-peaked."
Though the sun's activity cycle is often regarded as a smooth bell curve, proceeding from low to high and then back down to low again, twin peaks are apparently not too uncommon. The last two solar maxima — which occurred in 1989 and 2001 — were doubled-peaked, exhibiting mini-cycles that lasted about two years, Pesnell added.
Dr. Tony Philips & NOAA / SWPC
Recent sunspot counts for Solar Cycle 24 fall short of predictions.
So the 2011 surge may just have been part one of Solar Cycle 24's fireworks display.
"I am comfortable in saying that another peak will happen in 2013 and possibly last into 2014," Pesnell said.
If a second peak does occur in 2013, activity in the sun's southern half might be the main driver. Our star's northern and southern hemispheres sometimes peak at different times, researchers said, and the south has been significantly quieter than the north thus far in Solar Cycle 24.
Pesnell is a member of the Solar Cycle Prediction Panel, a group of solar physicists who gathered in 2006 and 2008 to forecast the next solar maximum. Weaving together a number of lines of evidence, including Solar Cycle 24's very deep minimum five or so years ago, the group made the following prediction:
"The panel has decided that the next solar cycle (Cycle 24) will be below average in intensity, with a maximum sunspot number of 90. Given the date of solar minimum and the predicted maximum intensity, solar maximum is now expected to occur in May 2013."
A peak in just two months doesn't seem likely now, given how quiet the sun has been recently, researchers said.
"We may be seeing what happens when you predict a single amplitude and the sun responds with a double peak," Pesnell said.
Follow Space.com senior writer Mike Wall on Twitter @michaeldwall or Space.com @Spacedotcom. We're also on Facebook and Google+. This article was first published on Space.com.
Leave a Comment:
So obviously this means global warming is a hoax... what other conclusion can there be?
That there's a massive wombat migration happening?
I didn't see a reference in the article to GW.
A hoax huh? Like a magic trick? I live in a state that is in one of the worst droughts ever recorded for the last 7 years. Our area lakes in the Dallas/Fort Worth area are down on average 10-12 feet! The crop failures here have been extreme, any where from 75% to 100% and cattle ranchers are sending their herds up north or to the slaughterhouse because there is not enough water to sustain them and trucking it in is too expensive. Cargill shuttered a slaughterhouse in Plainview TX. last month due to the drought that cost thousands of families their livelihoods, some of them had worked there for 3 generations!
I believe that we have truly changed our climate and the worst is yet to come.
Doug.....don't take this personally but.....you're a Troglodyte!
Doug is not a troglodyte; he's a satirist; there's usually a difference. (That's not to say that satirical trogs ain't fun, too!)
Steady, folks. If yo want to believe in man caused global warming feel free... however the sun might be having some influence too.
Kevin in Texas, DarnThatDream, Michael (Astronomy.FM), Don Harris
Contrary to the IPPC report, a new studies have shown that solar variation impacts the earth climate. A new workshop through the National Academy of Science, "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate: A Workshop Report". We are in one of the weakest solar cycles and indications are that still weaker cycles are ahead. The result is colder weather in the futurer.
Secondly, review N.E. Lorenz Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow, 1963. His work showed that the climates set of deterministic equations can become non-deterministic or chaotic and hence there is no deterministic solution. The climate change crowd is using statics to calibrate there climate models. I cannot find any mathematical proof that a non-deterministic model can be calibrated by statically methods. "Climate change" has bet there hat on something that cannot be mathematically proven therefore are we to "bet the farm on someone guess"????
Third, "The ocean and ocean life control the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and they dominate earth's carbon cycle. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. By absorbing infrared radiation (energy) from the earth's surface, it helps keep the surface warm. The amount of carbon dioxide in the air is increasing, partly because we burn fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil. The increasing amounts of carbon dioxide are causing earth to slowly warm up. To understand the warming, we must understand how the ocean controls earth's carbon cycle.
1. Most of the available carbon is in the ocean. The ocean holds 50 times more carbon than the atmosphere.
2. About half of earth's primary production, the conversion of water, carbon dioxide, sunlight, and
inorganic nutrients into oxygen and hydrocarbons, occurs in the ocean. Primary producers in the ocean are the phytoplankton. They also produce oxygen as a by product of this reaction.
2a. When the phytoplankton die and decay, or when they are eaten, the hydrocarbons are converted back to carbon dioxide, using up all the oxygen produced by the phytoplankton.
2b. But, sometimes phytoplankton and other life in the sea die and sink to the sea floor before they can decay. When they are buried in the sediments, they leave behind the oxygen produced by the hytoplankton. Over millions of years this produced the oxygen in the atmosphere. It also produced the oil, gas, and coal we now use to make electricity, heat our homes, and run our cars and trucks. We call this process the biological pump that takes carbon dioxide out of the air.
3. Almost exactly half of the carbon dioxide put into the air by our burning of fossil fuels is absorbed by the ocean. Carbon dioxide dissolves in cold water near the Arctic and Antarctic. When the cold water sinks deep into the ocean in winter, it carries the carbon dioxide away from the atmosphere. Many years later, the water is gradually pulled closer to the sea surface by mixing in the ocean. When it gets to the surface in warm areas it releases the carbon dioxide back to the air. This process allows the ocean to store great quantities of carbon dioxide for many centuries. We call this the physical pump that takes carbon dioxide out of the air.
4. The biosphere expands and contracts on a 450,000 year cycle in response to changes in isolation (incoming sunlight at different latitudes). The long period is due to long-term storage of carbon in
the ocean and the dissolving of carbonate on the sea floor. Palike (2006). "
Fourth, from my view point when people start calling names and going off topic they either do not understand the all the issues at hand, or they have nothing to add to the conversation and want to be noticed.
There is no global warming! This is all with in climate variation the only global warming or climate change is in the heads of reports selling news.
Doug, you actually have write out the word sarcasm otherwise these morons won't pick up on it
Thanks for singling me out in such good company, but I'm afraid that your science is about as good as your spelling.
Of course not! Ignore the record-setting years, year after year, decade after decade! Ignore the basic science (happy birthday Svante) of greenhouse gases and 32 gigatonnes of carbon spewed into our air every year! Ignore those ships now cruising the newly ice-free arctic; the ice lies!
(and so I don't get into the same hot water as Doug, [/sarc]...)
"what other conclusion can there be?"
That doug is completely and hopelessly brainwashed and he won't look at any evidence that contracts his gorebull warming theory no matter how big the evidence..
Doug is correct. The sun is the only source of energy for the earth. Sun's out goes down... earth cools off. Please review the three laws of thermodynamics. Also please see above.
R-738279, please explain the physics/mechanics of how the sun heats the earth's core and mantle-this could be a huge breakthrough for geophysics
Ckneeley, please review the liture on the Earth's Energy Balance. You will find that without the sun's continuous energy input we would be a snowball. I found a reference from MIT that may help you understand the concepts paoc.mit.edu/labweb/notes/chap2.pdf. Hope you enjoy.
R-738279
My issue is with your use of the phrase "only" while that is absolutly not true. Radioactive decay and friction inside the earth is the source of energy for thermal vents which harbor a great deal of life. I am not a climate change denier by any means but poorly thought out statements like yours are the kind of non-sense that deniers grab on to, this just adds useless noise to the discussion-in general you shouldn't use words like always and only when it comes to science as that is rarely the case.
C, The sun is the only source of energy for life on the surface of this planet as we know it. Without the sun photosynthesis would have not developed the world would be a very different place.
OBY, I do not deny that there is climate change, it has been going on since this planet formed. At one time free oxygen did not exist to any great extent and the EPA would have banned the development of Blue-Green algae to stop the release of free oxygen.... The climate is in a constant state of change due to natural forces that are beyond our abilities and control.
R-tell that to the tube worms in the deep ocean trenches
C, I was not talking about Tube Worms in the ocean deep... I am talking about the great plains
I wouldnt put too much stock in the hopes for a second peak. This cycle has missed predictions all along:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/index.html
For good Solar weather/conditions I use http://www.solarham.net/
Also try
Well that past did not work too well...
The other solar data site is www.sidc.oma.be
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis
Stellar nucleosynthesis
The sun loses 4.2 million metric tons matter to energy and something like 1.6 million metric tons from solar wind every second.
The first nuclear bombs yielded about the weight of an aspirin tablet.
Some interesting things need to be explained:
From the above link, we see that fusion hydrogen to helium, lithium and small amounts the lighter elements fuel the Sun.
We know of the 11/22 years solar cycles, but what relationship they have with the fusion process we do not. It is known that the small amount of heaver elements affect the Sun fusion, but the internal scale and the mechanism of how these reactions contrived to produce solar cycles remains unknown?
One conclusion or precaution that seems wise is not to use the Sun as waste dump, liability insurance is costly.
The Sun surface, corona, chromosphere have a not intuitive temperature profile, exactly why needs an explanation, to have cooler temperatures at the surface with much higher temperatures higher.
The gravitation and the intensity of the light might be clue, speculation based on the novel technique of using laser light to cool atoms to lower temperatures, suggests that this cooling effect might be natural for largely the same reason.
By the way the Sun's energy in eons past produced all of the Earth carbon fuel, carbon as turns out is the most important powerful source energy leveraged by humans. Powering the Earth human economy and moving all that is moved in Earths commerce. Such a power element as carbon has a powerful effect, on life. This is not such a mystery because life was what produced the carbon used as fuel, and as well the oxygen that is used to burn it. The Sun, the natural radiator, carbon bonds, and the water has produced all that lives and breathes on the Earth, and was well moderates temperatures in its favor. Human respect does not seen worth much, but carbon is worthy of respect and understanding.
This cycle 24, has been very slow to almost nothing of what it should be. It could have a week peak but not a double peak, sometime in late 2014. The amount of sun spots has been declining for more than 5 years, and at times there have been no spots for weeks, then just a few at a time, and nothing again. Normal cycles in the past have had spots all over the sun most of the time, and many in the explosive stage of activity.
No one can predict what will happen on our sun.
The sun's behavior certainly has been interesting the last few years. Perhaps we are headed into another minimum like the Maunder Minimum. That event coincided with what is known as the Little Ice Age.
Humans may be contributing to the warming of our globe with our fossil fuels, but don't forget that far and away the biggest gorilla on the field is the sun.
I would suggest that the whims of the sun can render CO2 induced warming into the noise.
Perhaps things may be cooling off soon.
The sun provides the heat, but it is not responsible for as much CHANGE as greenhouse gasses. This has been demonstrated with multiple studies. The known sun variations simply cannot account for the observed temperature record.
That would certainly be good news if it were true, Will.
Unfortunately, even a major event like a Maunder Minimum would 'cool' the planet by a mere 0.1C to 0.3C this century. Compare that to the expected global warming of between 3.7C to 4.5C over the same timeframe.
A Maunder Minimum would be 'noise'. Welcome 'noise', to be sure - but still 'noise'.
Jock please see this new studies have shown that solar variation impacts the earth climate. A new workshop
through the National Academy of Science, "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate: A Workshop Report". We are in one of the weakest solar cycles and indications are that still weaker cycles are ahead. The result is colder weather in the future.
Having read numerous overviews of that report, R, I can assure you that while fascinating, the report shows that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global.
For example, when researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific shows a pronounced La Nina pattern, and a cooling of nearly 1C in the equatorial eastern Pacific. But the effect disappears when peak sunspot activity ends.
Certainly not an explanation for 150 years of climate change. Sun cycles are, after all, only 11 - 12 years long. And for the last 40+ years, solar activity and global temperatures have been moving in the opposite direction.
I wish. I think we all do. We could manage that.
Dear Physicist-Retired, Please see the new report I have referenced above. If you can not find it I can send you the PDF from the NAS. Secondly, please review E.N. Lorenz Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow, 1963. I can also send you a copy if you can not find it online. His work showed that the climates set of deterministic equations can become non-deterministic or chaotic and hence there is no deterministic solution. The climate change crowd is using statics to calibrate there climate models. I cannot find any mathematical proof that a non-deterministic model can be calibrated by statically methods. Maybe you know of a proof or treatise on the subject of statical calibrations of non-deterministic systems and models. THX.
There is a difference between chaotic systems and complex systems, R. Chaotic systems don't rely on their history. Complex ones do.
Weather is chaotic. But our climate is a complex system, not a chaotic one. And while chaotic fluid flow solutions arising from Navier-Stokes equations might have a substantial impact on weather forecasting, they have far less influence on predicting future climates (and climate changes).
No one can predict the temperature in Cleveland on July 6, 2100 (chaotic). But we can be pretty sure that the temperature will be warmer on July 6, 2100 that it will be on January 1, 2100 (complex). See how that works?
BTW, Lorenz wasn't the first one to recognize that. Poincare saw it 60 years earlier (the '3-body problem'). Michael above will enjoy remembering that lesson from basic celestial mechanics ;-)