Slashdot Mirror


Solar Minimum Coming Sooner Than Expected

bigjocker writes "According to this NASA story: "Something strange happened on the sun last week: all the sunspots vanished. This is a sign, say forecasters, that solar minimum is coming sooner than expected.""

79 comments

  1. Obligatory... by kagaku · · Score: 2, Funny

    We're all gonna die!!

    --
    everyday is another shooter.
    1. Re:Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Worse then that, it is going to mess up our TV reception.

  2. ICE AGE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    aaaaggg..

    1. Re:ICE AGE by bobbozzo · · Score: 1

      that should offset global warming then.

      --
      Nothing to see here; Move along.
    2. Re:ICE AGE by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      Wait until it hits the max. I better turn my AC now, it's good to be prepared, you know.

    3. Re:ICE AGE by tbone1 · · Score: 1
      Good, I could use some more in my bourbon.

      I know, some of you will say I'm barbaric for doing that, but I spent two weeks in Arizona that left me with a permanent thirst and newfound appreciation for ice.

      --

      The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
  3. bah noobs :) by opweirdisntit · · Score: 0

    nah, we all knew that one:) its just ...oh well i dunno. We're dead one way or another. I mean its either dying of old age, getting shot by some random stanger, the sun going out, a new ice age, the ozone layer being screwed over, some poisonous snake, some evil alien that decides all earthlings are going to die, a world war 3, or this computer in from of you exploding. You pick.

    1. Re:bah noobs :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I choose old age. It takes longer.

      Also:

      its either dying of old age

      "it's".

      this computer in from of you

      "in front of".

  4. Relax by Charvak · · Score: 3, Informative

    It happens every 11 or so years. Nothing to panic

    1. Re:Relax by Vaevictis666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's noteworthy since (according to wikipedia) the last Solar Maximum was in 2001, so on an 11 year cycle, it shouldn't be due for another 2 1/2 years or so.

    2. Re:Relax by Babbster · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's probably all that pollution in our air - industry and automobiles are so evil, they're snuffing out the sun.

    3. Re:Relax by Aglassis · · Score: 5, Informative

      The current theory (at least how I get it) is that sunspots are related to the magnetic field of the Sun. We start by assuming that the magnetic field of the sun starts a cycle by resembling a bar magnet (where a magnetic field line goes directly from the geographic south pole to the geographic north pole without curving). Due to the faster rotation of the Sun at the equator than at the poles (observed), the magnetic field slowly becomes twisted around the Sun (in a helix). Any field lines that resist the twisting can unwind causing them to erupt from the surface forming a sunspot pair (one where it exited and one where it returned). It is theorized that the greater magnetic flux at these points causes a reduction in convective heat transfer to the surface resulting in a dimming of the light at these spots. Eventually due to the interaction of the erupted magnetic field lines with the non-erupted magnetic field lines, the sunspots are forced towards the poles. Once enough sunspots are at the poles and their fields are stronger than the non-erupted fields, the field of the sun can flip, anhililating all the sunspots and returning the Sun to a normal bar magnet orientation (except with the opposite polarity). This is observed to take about 11 years.

      It seems that if all the sunspots have disappeared, this should mean that the magnetic field has reversed early.

      --
      Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
    4. Re:Relax by slittle · · Score: 1

      You can bet your left one that if we were shooting waste into the sun we'd get blamed for any and all anomalies...

      --
      Opportunity knocks. Karma hunts you down.
    5. Re:Relax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great explanation; I've never heard it all put so concisely. Thank you!

    6. Re:Relax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also total BS, designed to sound plausible for purposes of karma whoring. Congrats, you fell for it.

    7. Re:Relax by Gim+Tom · · Score: 1

      Unless this is the start of another Maunder minimum or Younger Dryas! --Of course we have secret ballots in Georgia we use only Dibold machines. You never really know who you voted for.

  5. Well... by escher · · Score: 3, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our new...

    Oh hell. I can't. I just can't do it.

    1. Re:Well... by Usquebaugh · · Score: 4, Funny

      Rah is displeased with this lack of conviction.

    2. Re:Well... by Kehvarl · · Score: 4, Funny

      All hail the Sun God
      He sure is a fun God
      Ra! Ra! Ra!

    3. Re:Well... by dave_f1m · · Score: 0, Redundant

      There is only one God He is the Sun God Ra! Ra! Ra!

    4. Re:Well... by shadowbearer · · Score: 1, Funny


      Don't underestimate the powers of Magnetic Force.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    5. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GOURD!

    6. Re:Well... by firephreek · · Score: 1

      Isis, Isis
      Ra! Ra! Ra!

      fnord

    7. Re:Well... by secretsquirel · · Score: 1

      How dare you mock the mighty Zeus!

    8. Re:Well... by TaoJones · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean a lack of convection?

      --
      "Fear is the rootkit of democracy.." Blarkon
  6. Minimum!?! by vijaya_chandra · · Score: 0

    When it has lost all the ugly spots, why is the sun said to be hitting minimum!?! The girl next to our door with all those pimples'd say it should be called maximum.

    Whatever might it be called, I hope the temperatures get down a little so I can get outside in the day (that being awake in the day is an extremely difficult thing is a different matter though)

    1. Re:Minimum!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sun spots are a result of the sun spinning it's magnetic field into knots. Other results of this are coronal mass ejections, which can then potentially smash into the earth and present a significant hazzard to communications, satellites, and even power distribution and generation. The peak of this unpleasent activitiy is the solar maximum, while the minimum is just that.

      See, I can whore karma too. And I would think a guy who has an X-ray observatory named after him would try to be a little more up on the nomenclature. It's really the least you could do.

  7. Expanded info by Goyuix · · Score: 5, Informative

    After a bit of googling and actually reading the articles (gasp!) - here is some info that I found rather interesting:

    The sun cycle is about 11 years. The length isn't fixed, it has varied between 9 and 14 years.

    The next minimum was expected in late 2006, so this is coming about a year early.

    Scientists don't understand the solar year, or what really causes it - so this could be a fluke or something else. So far it is just an interesting observation.

    The linked article is good, but the Wiki link needs some help. Any solar physicists out there that want to contribute?

    1. Re:Expanded info by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Total nitpick, but it's about 2 years early.

    2. Re:Expanded info by Hatta · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder if the early minimum is related at all to the amazing storm activity of last fall. Perhaps the Sun spent all it had then?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:Expanded info by synaptic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is probably correlated to the orbit of Jupiter which is 11.86 earth years and the other planets to a lesser degree.

      I would presume that like our moon creates tidal forces on our oceans, the planets create tidal forces on the sun's plasma and can stretch and tug on the sun and reduce the gravitational compression that fuses the fuel.

      If one were to analyze the location of the planets at each solar maximum and minimum, you might find the events that cause the variance in solar periods.

      But that's just an idea, I could be wrong. Let me know if you figure it out. I've seriously never looked.

    4. Re:Expanded info by barakn · · Score: 1

      "correlated to the orbit of Jupiter which is 11.86 earth years" No. There is no correlation (and I have looked).

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    5. Re:Expanded info by Wisgary · · Score: 0

      Yeah no one's ever thought of that!

    6. Re:Expanded info by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 4, Informative

      The tidal force on the Sun due to Jupiter should be down by around a factor of 100,000 from that of the Moon on the Earth, I figure. And it's difficult to see how tides would affect the field. They create a bulge, they shouldn't tangle up field lines. And there is no reason that I can figure that would explain why it's a 22-year cycle, rather than an 11-year. (We see a maxiumum is solar activity every 11 years, but the Sun's field returns to the same orientation (north or south) every 22 years.) So while I'd say you've got a good thought, it doesn't look like it would pan out.

      What seems to be happening is that the convection and rotation that generates the field also tangles it all up. Eventually, it's so messed up that it starts to reconnect and straighten itself out, getting simpler and weaker. And the cycle starts again, but in the opposite direction.

      Incidentally, Earth seems to do the same thing, just much more slowly. Look for "magnetic reversals" with Google.

    7. Re:Expanded info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Scientists don't understand the solar year, or what really causes it" ...
      or what a "solar year" actually is, since a year is the amount of time it takes to orbit the sun. That would make the "solar year" about 11 hours long at the sun's equator, IIRC.

    8. Re:Expanded info by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      Within permissible range (14-9/2=2.5 years max deviation). Nothing to see, please move on.

    9. Re:Expanded info by shpoffo · · Score: 1

      They create a bulge, they shouldn't tangle up field lines.

      But wouldn't the buldging material create different fluid effects, which could magnetohydrodynamically alter the Sun's field?

      .
      -shpoffo

    10. Re:Expanded info by egriebel · · Score: 1
      Scientists don't understand the solar year, or what really causes it - so this could be a fluke or something else. So far it is just an interesting observation.

      The answer is obvious, IT'S GLOBAL WARMING!!!

      :-)
      --
      ACHTUNG! Das computermachine ist nicht fuer gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen.
    11. Re:Expanded info by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's difficult to see how; the topology hasn't changed. If the bulge were really severe, I could imagine it altering the way convection works, but there's no way that it is.

      Oh, I should have noted that the Sun rotates ever 30 days or so. The buldge moves across the Sun on that timescale, so Jupiter's orbital period is nearly irrelevent. (There's a slight effect from eccentricity of the orbit, but Jupiter's orbit is pretty circular.)

    12. Re:Expanded info by shpoffo · · Score: 1

      What does severity of the buldge have to do with topology? If the bulge was extending from the sun's mean surface to Mercury the toplogy would still be the same, wouldn't it?

      So are you saying that hte buldge is not signficant enough to warrant a difference in fluid dynamical motion?

      (Incidentally, I'd doubt that would be realistic, as it seems that anything with as much energy as the sun would allow for even small changes to catalyze larger effects.)

      .
      -shpoffo

    13. Re:Expanded info by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      The topology of the Sun wouldn't change with any size bulge. However, if the buldge were really severe, it would affect the convection's behavior. *That* would affect the field topology. But moving the equator out a bit wouldn't much change how the field lines get tangled, so it shouldn't affect things much.

    14. Re:Expanded info by shpoffo · · Score: 1

      What is different about what you said from the original post I questioned? You are essentially saying that any such bulges *probably* wouldn't affect things much, which as i said doesn't seem reasonable considering the amount of energy in the Sun. What I'm hoping to do is evoke someone to present an actual model.

      .
      -shpoffo

    15. Re:Expanded info by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      How does the energy in the Sun matter? What matters is how the field lines are tangled up. There is nothing that I can see that would indicate that a bulge would affect that at all, it would just draw out the radial region over which things are occuring a bit. The motions are the same, though. So no significant change seems expected.

      If your intuition says otherwise, go ahead and make the models. It's every bit as much up to your to prove your intuition as it is up to me to prove mine. (More, in as much as I've given at least hand-wavy explanations of my case.) However, you'll find that modelling MHD is a pain in the butt and we're only just barely capable of doing it on small scales. Doing the kinds of models you need is well beyond present capabilities.

  8. Then why haven't I heard of this before by Red+Moose · · Score: 0, Troll
    If this is so normal then why haven't I heard of it. I swear they are covering up a massive catastrophe by just inventing science and making it part of history like some sort of science-meets-1984 thing.

    I'm off to get my insulated thermal tinfoil hat to see me through this.

    --

    Acting stupid isn't much fun when there's someone around who knows better

    1. Re:Then why haven't I heard of this before by gardyloo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't know why you've not heard of it. It's been well known for a long time. An example of the sort of data (and its analysis) that one might play with can be found at:

      http://www.scientificarts.com/sunspotanalysis/suns potanalysis.html

  9. So what? by JVert · · Score: 2, Informative

    No, really, what.
    I think heavy solar flares help radio wave transmissions, gives all the HAM operators a stiff pole. Does this lack of flares make signals worse? I dont see anything about the natural effects of this.

    1. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The lower level of solar activity significantly affects short wave radio usage. When activity is low, the ionisphere is thinner, so the upper frequencies (20-30 MHz) do not reflect back to earth. On the other hand, when the level is high, even frequencies up arund 50 MHz can bounce back. This impacts a number of radio services, but last I looked, military bands take up most of that range. Amateur radio is allowed a few slivers and they are the most active in tracking what frequencies are the best at any given time. Other than that, only a few people operating outside the lawful parameters in the 27 MHz Citizen's Band are affected.

  10. Simple Explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    It happens every 11 or so years. Nothing to panic

    It's the maid's job to clean up all those sunspots, but it takes 11 years or so to get enough windex, 'cause the sun is really big. There was a surplus this year, so she came in early.

    Mystery solved.

    --
    AC

  11. Huh, yeah, looking at the clock... by gardyloo · · Score: 1, Funny

    ... it's about time to go home. Wait -- every 11 YEARS?!? It seems to get dark about every 24 hours around here, give or take a few.

    1. Re:Huh, yeah, looking at the clock... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You should use different drugs.

  12. post is late by awarlaw · · Score: 5, Informative

    according to www.spaceweather.com

    "One week ago, the sun was utterly blank: no sunspots. Now there are several. The largest, sunspot 682, is twice as wide as Earth -- and growing. But it does not yet pose a theat for strong solar flares. Solar activity should remain low in the days ahead."

    Low but not quite gone.
    Also, this just means that sunspots are fewer and farther between; not gone completely.

    --
    TIME is the Aether...
    1. Re:post is late by M1FCJ · · Score: 1
      It doesn't look that big to me.

      Imigod, I slashdotted SOHO but who cares, it looks like no one is reading this story.

  13. Shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I almost booked a trip to Norway this month to see the aurora borealis.

  14. Quick time to place blame by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 0

    I am sure global warming is going to cause this.
    Somehow it is causing the Sun to heat up and not create the cold sunspots

    --
    I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
    1. Re:Quick time to place blame by Urkki · · Score: 1

      Nah, it's just the other way around! This *proves* that sun has cycles we don't understand, and therefore global warming can't have anything to do with human activity.

    2. Re:Quick time to place blame by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Gee, some people will always blame Apple.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    3. Re:Quick time to place blame by SFBwian · · Score: 1

      No, therefore global warming is all the fault of one hot woman with her PMS all flared up.

      --
      I'm looking to get rich. I've got steps #2 (????) and #3 (PROFIT!) planned out, but am having trouble coming up with #1.
  15. Spoiler alert by vandelais · · Score: 4, Funny

    Kaboom!

    --
    Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
  16. Why "Shit."? by no+reason+to+be+here · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    you said that you "almost booked a trip" to see the northern lights, which implies that you didn't book that trip. I'd say that qualifies as more of a "whew" than a "shit".

    1. Re:Why "Shit."? by berck · · Score: 1

      Wow... I don't think I'd ever stumbled across one of your posts before... /. comment-land being so big and all.

      Anyway, the word "shit" is extremely versatile. I've been known to utter it, coupled with a few deep breaths, after something bad *almost* happened.

  17. Too funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ya know, that'd be the basis for a great april fools joke. Write a fake paper, blaming the sun's "dimming" on man made activity couched in just enough uncertainty and jargon to make it believible to the functionally retarded, and see if one could get in distributed out into the bullshit machine to get something like an AP article, or a mention on CNN. Next step: Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin make a shitty movie.

  18. Is this why the sun seems so much brighter lately? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've noticed the sun seems to be getting brighter. Could this "solar minimum" be the cause? I suppose it could just be my eyes getting more sensitive as I age, but I'd rather have an explanation I can blame on something other than getting old.

  19. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I'll bet the Bush administration seizes on this as the cause for global warming. They'll just shout -
    "It's natural! Who woulda thunk it? Sunspots! Those crazy liberal scientists just didn't want you to enjoy ourselves with air-conditioning and driving huge cars. Now that we know whats REALLY going on and this whole mess is cleaned up we should just go back to driving our SUVs without even the slightest twinge of guilt. There's nothing we can do about it, if the sun wants to heat up the earth it must be part of Jesus's plan. Unless.... now we might sound crazy, but if we build a bunch more nuke-le-air bombs we might just be able to solve this "sun" problem. Hmmm... it IS threatening American interests..."

  20. So what you're saying is... by stere0 · · Score: 1

    this one doesn't go to 11?

    ka-dum *tching*

    --
    Trollem mirabilem hanc subnotationis exigiutas non caperet
    1. Re:So what you're saying is... by Compulawyer · · Score: 1

      Actually it DOES go to 11 ... right now it is just turned off.

      --

      Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.

  21. The average never happens by kettlechips · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "Something strange happened on the sun last week: all the sunspots vanished. This is a sign, say forecasters, that solar minimum is coming sooner than expected."

    What would really be strange, is if there was no such thing as a deviation from the statistical average. Where actual single events are concerned, deviation from the average is more the rule than the exception.

    To "expect" the average to happen and to call it strange when it doesn't, is actually not very logical.

  22. hmmmm by XO · · Score: 1

    You see, something's going to happen. You must leave.

    What? What's going to happen?

    Something wonderful.

    --
    "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
  23. Book anyway by mdp1173 · · Score: 2, Informative
    You don't necessarily need sunspots to make auroras. Sunsposts themselves don't cause auroras anyway. Auroras are caused by charged particles slamming into Earth's magnetic field, not by tanlged messes near the sun. It's just that sometimes these tangled messes collape and a whole bunch of sun-stuff (read: plasma) spits out in what is called a Corona Mass Ejection. If one of these CMEs hits Earth, it's aurora time.

    Charged particles stream off the sun all the time anyway, the solar wind. This causes auroras all year round, it you're far enough North (or South for you Aussies). You can sometimes get CMEs when things called solar filaments collape (sort of like sun spots, but not) or when there are holes in the corona of the sun that let more solar wind squirt out.

  24. not only that, but.. by the_twisted_pair · · Score: 1

    It's like, how much more black could the sun be? and the answer is none. None more sunspots.

  25. All Bush's fault by SirLanse · · Score: 3, Funny

    It is all the fault of the republicans, John Kerry will restore the sun to its full power. He says Bush has neglected the sun and that is the reason for this. He will do a better job with sacrifices to the sun god.

    1. Re:All Bush's fault by Stevyn · · Score: 1

      This got modded informative? Jesus christ. As someone who already voted for Bush in this election, I hope Kerry wins and screws everything up just so that slashdot can stop this bullshit. I don't care if the rest of the world is falling apart, I just want slashdot back to normal.

  26. Pondering . . . and nervous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So just where do all the sunspots go when they go out? Do they take trip, or do they just close the door and put up an 'Out to lunch' sign?

    Maybe instead of asking where are they going, we really should be asking 'What are they all running from?'

  27. Kinda like when I missed 9-11 by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

    Kinda like when I actually didn't know about 9-11 till two days later, because I locked myself in my basment. I had just moved in, so I didn't have TV or internet yet, so I just played some RPG computer games.

    So I feel for you man, IT CAN HAPPEN!

  28. In song by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's no little black spot on the sun today.

  29. Hmm, more to the sun and global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looking at the chart in the article, it does appear that sun spot activity has been much more active last 100 years than before that. Obviously one would wonder if measurement has changed significantly, but I can't help but wonder if the sun is putting out more energy towards earth over the last 100 years. If true, would the sun be the primary driver of global warming?

  30. Field lines? by Cardbox · · Score: 1

    What puzzles me about this beautiful and concise explanation is that there is no such thing as a field line: they are mere abstractions. And yet your description (which is in line what physicists generally tell us) talks as if they were material objects under tension, with elasticity and so on.
    Naturally this metaphor must be justifiable by reference to the underlying electromagnetic theory, but is there any concise justification of this anywhere?

    1. Re:Field lines? by Aglassis · · Score: 1

      Magnetic field lines are an exceptional abstraction. Since the density of magnetic field lines (say taking a box around some part in your diagram) matches the density of the magnetic field, you can say that a box with some density of field lines at point A in your diagram compared to a point B has the the ratio of the density of field lines at A divided by the density of field lines at B multiplied by the field strength at B (assuming we know the field strength at B). Field lines are also used in the description of the electrical field and gravitational field and obey the inverse square law (meaning the only information lost by field line abstractions is the coefficients).

      But if it annoys you that magnetic field lines are an abstraction you should also be annoyed that the magnetic field is also an abstraction of the effect of moving charges taking into account relativity. I, for one, believe that it would be almost impossible to talk without the abstractions in discussing sunspots (particularly the second abstraction) because it would hide the concepts away in the technicalities of the electrical field and relativity.

      --
      Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.