Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mystery of the Missing Sunspots, Solved?

Posted by samzenpus on from the hide-and-go-seek dept.

PRB_Ohio writes "The sun is in the middle of a century long solar minimum, and sunspots have been puzzlingly scarce for more than two years. Now, for the first time, solar physicists might understand why. The gist is that there is a 'jet stream' like phenomenon about 7,000km below the surface of the sun. The streams migrate slowly from the poles to the equator and when a jet stream reaches the critical latitude of 22 degrees, new-cycle sunspots begin to appear. Scientists at the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson, Arizona, used a technique called helioseismology to track and analyze the streams."

39 of 99 comments (clear)

  1. Puberty by CosmicRabbit · · Score: 5, Funny

    My theory is way simpler. The Sun simply got out of puberty, and obviously acne started to disappear...

  2. Obligatory.. by feepness · · Score: 4, Funny

    So I guess this is what happens when you cross the streams...

  3. Sunspot cycle by Psychotic_Wrath · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here is a neat article explaining more about sunspots http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm?list56376/ It talks about the cycle in sunspots.

    --

    Doctors do Massage in Longview WA now, who knew?
  4. It's sort of refreshing... by ockegheim · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... that at least some climate activity isn't and can't be affected by humans.

    I'm hoping the missing sunspots has contributed to the extended drought in Australia. "The driest *insert month or time period* on record" is getting tiresome.

    --
    I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
    1. Re:It's sort of refreshing... by riverat1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I heard on the news today that the Australian Weather Service decided to stop calling it a drought because using the word drought implies it will end at some point and they don't see this ending anytime soon.

    2. Re:It's sort of refreshing... by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What everybody fails to mention about Climate, is that 99% of it is caused by the Sun. Earth's spin gets the last 1%, which lets the sun do cooler stuff with wind than it could without it.

      We actually have a miniscule affect on climate. The only bad part is it may not take much at all to kill us.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    3. Re:It's sort of refreshing... by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "that at least some climate activity isn't and can't be affected by humans"

      Been reading Andrew Bolt's fact free opinion columns have we? Nobody who has read the IPCC reports could possibly belive that scientists dispute the existance of natural variations but plenty of politically motivated, anti-science trolls have claimed EVERYTHING can be explained by natural variation. Not the least amoung these lying hypocrites is the coal industry's pet senator Barnaby Joyce.

      Here is what the BOM says about our climate and the permenant drought.

      The fact that Melbourne's dams are at their lowest level ever (for how many winter's in a row now?), or the fact that most of our major cities are on severe water rationing and scrambling to build giant de-sal plants, or the fact that our grain harvest has been cut in half for all but 2 of the last 10 yrs, may not bother you, but it certainly bothers farmers and most Aussies with more than a single brain cell.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    4. Re:It's sort of refreshing... by NickFortune · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What everybody fails to mention about Climate, is that 99% of it is caused by the Sun

      That's an interesting way of looking at it.

      Of course, you should also consider that Earth's biosphere is essentially a planet sized solar collector. Plants trap the sunlight and store it as high energy compounds. Then animals come along ad turn the plants' trapped energy into more concentrated forms, like fats. Even when the organism dies, the stored energy remains. Eventually, if given long enough it turns into fossil fuels. Six hundred million years of dinosaur blubber gave us our oil reserves. Lord knows how many years of dead trees went to make our coal.

      We actually have a miniscule affect on climate

      Well, that all depends on what we do, doesn't it? I mean, if we built a giant magnifying glass in space so Earth got five times more solar radiation, that would have an effect. If we launched solar reflectors into orbit so 50% of the sunlight falling on the planet was reflected away, that would have an effect too. Granted, it would be the Sun causing the effect. But it would also be us, yeah?

      And to my way of thinking, if we take 600 million years of trapped solar radiation and release most of it over a paltry couple of centuries ... well, I reckon that would have an effect too.

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    5. Re:It's sort of refreshing... by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Insightful
      And to my way of thinking, if we take 600 million years of trapped solar radiation and release most of it over a paltry couple of centuries ... well, I reckon that would have an effect too.

      That's not really what it's about. The waste heat from our industries isn't heating the Earth significantly; according to Wikipedia the total world electricity generation is 6.3*10**19 J. The total energy input from the Sun is 1.5*10**22 J. All our industries add up to about half of a percent of the Earth's heat budget. A 31st-century fusion-based economy might run into waste heat problems, but not us.

      The problem is infrared opacity of carbon dioxide. Energy comes in from the Sun in the visible spectrum (black-body temperature 5500K or so). It's absorbed by the Earth, which warms up, and re-radiates in the infrared (black-body temperature 300K or so). Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared photons in that frequency range. Of course it re-radiates infrared photons out again soon enough, but when it does so, it doesn't necessarily radiate them up. Result is, the more carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere, the more any given quantum of energy leaving the Earth can expect to hit on a random walk through the atmosphere before escaping into space - and so the longer it takes. But the incoming visible photons aren't delayed at all. Final result, whole system shifts to a higher temperature equilibrium.

      Now there are any number of complications. The Earth isn't a black body, it's all sorts of colours, and there are many other mechanisms also in play: some that absorb carbon dioxide, some that release more. So it's hard to put a definite figure on the expected warming. And suppose you do: suppose you say 'We predict average global warming of n Kelvin in the next hundred years'... what effect will that have? Will it dry out forests, which burn to the ground? Or will the jungles expand? Will southern Europe become Sahara North? Will Siberia defrost and become farmland? What about all that methane under the permafrost? How much glacier melt can we expect, and which cities need to be evacuated? Suddenly it's a colossal multivariable nightmare.

      You're not all that far off in your thinking, though. Consider the climate when all that carbon was being turned into coal and buried. It was called the Carboniferous Era, and it was a good deal warmer than it is today - until the very end. Funnily enough, once all that carbon dioxide was taken out of the air by plants, which then got buried and turned to coal... the climate cooled quite a lot, and the Permian began with the planet in the grip of a massive ice age.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  5. What? by arun84h · · Score: 2, Funny

    I figured the Hardy Boys would be long dead by now! Great job, boys!

  6. Old news by cdn-programmer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is old news. Its been known for a few years now that the solar conveyor belt has slowed. The question is how long solar activity will remain weak.

    During the Maunder minimum it remained weak from about 1645 to 1710. Other minimums also occurred over a fairly long duration. During these minimums the earth tends to be quite cold. Read the wikipedia article on the maunder minimum and related minimums.

    Thing is we may face many decades of reduced agricultural output at a time when we have many mouths to feed.

    Its too early to tell yet, but cycle #24 is over 2 years late and cycle #25 is expected to be weak as well. So we could be looking at 22+ years of cold cold weather.

    1. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Its too early to tell yet, but cycle #24 is over 2 years late...

      We're pregnant, aren't we.

    2. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      What the hell will Al Gore do?

    3. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What the hell will Al Gore do?

      Well maybe you missed the memo, but the problem is not "Global Warming" anymore, it's "Climate Change".

      Since the climate is always changing, Al's job is safe.

    4. Re:Old news by camperdave · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thing is we may face many decades of reduced agricultural output at a time when we have many mouths to feed.

      No worries though. In the time it takes for the population to triple, our agricultural output quadruples. The problem is, and always has been, distribution.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    5. Re:Old news by evilviper · · Score: 2, Funny

      So we could be looking at 22+ years of cold cold weather.

      Just enough time to fix global warming...

      BTW, that must be a HUGE groundhog.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  7. Wrong Logo Attached to Article by sk999 · · Score: 4, Informative

    NASA's logo is attached to the article, but the National Solar Observatory is funded by the National Science Foundation. Different agency entirely. http://www.nso.edu/

  8. Ah, solar puberty . . . by StefanJ · · Score: 5, Funny

    So those coronal mass ejections we hear about were the Sun exploring . . . mmmnnnn never mind, I won't go there.

    1. Re:Ah, solar puberty . . . by hezekiah957 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Boy, I wish there was a "-1, Disgusting" (or +1) mod.

    2. Re:Ah, solar puberty . . . by fluffywuffy · · Score: 2, Funny

      So those coronal mass ejections we hear about were the Sun exploring . . .

      uranus ?

  9. I have sunspots... by Penguinshit · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... I call them freckles. If a sunspot moves or grows the dermatologist deals with it.

    --

    I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...

  10. This is not an explanation by Normal_Deviate · · Score: 2, Informative
    So solar output was correlated with sunspots. Now it is also correlated with a subsurface current. A step forward, but it is a bit premature to use the word "explain."

    On a different not, how depressing that I have been pushed into resenting several forms of science. When I saw the headline, my first thought was, "Crap. More data to cherry pick to justify central control over individuals." And I say this as someone who has actually published in peer reviewed journals. Gloom.

  11. HF Radio by FudRucker · · Score: 4, Informative

    i know the upper part of the HF spectrum has been acting like the next solar cycle has already started, the DX/Skip has been incredibly good and dependable and any HF enthusiast knows that by now if they have a HF rig handy.

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:HF Radio by elkto · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Depends on what you call incredibly good. I have been hearing allot of strong E layer contacts which happens in the northern latitudes this time of year. Not allot of F layer contacts. F layer is considerably higher in altitude allowing for long distance HF communication.

      During the middle of cycle 23, I worked Tokyo, Germany, the Red Sea, and Brazil, all from my car in Ohio. I heard Australia, but just could not work them.

      --... ...--

  12. The Economy by Fished · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course, the fact that we have the worst global recession in 70 years at the same time as a low in sunspot activity is Entirely Coincidental. Seriously, I haven't studied this in depth, so I don't really know, but it sure seems suspicious, and it's certainly been proposed in the past that the sunspot cycle affected the economy.

    --
    "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
  13. Oh, shoot! by reboot246 · · Score: 4, Funny

    And all this time I thought the lack of sunspots was caused by global warming.

    Back to the drawing board. :)

    1. Re:Oh, shoot! by fractoid · · Score: 4, Funny

      There are no pirates on the sun. That's why the surface of the sun is so hot. In retrospect, it's obvious, isn't it?

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    2. Re:Oh, shoot! by thhamm · · Score: 4, Funny

      I thought the lack of sunspots was caused by global warming

      what is this, soviet russia?!

    3. Re:Oh, shoot! by reboot246 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Soon to be, sadly. :(

  14. Re:"century-class solar minimum" by Ironsides · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, given that the minimum started a few years ago and the earth has been on a cooling trend for the past few years, ending a period of high solar activity in which we were on a warming trend, it would be quite a coincidence that the warming trend happened to end just when the sun had a drastic decrease in solar activity.

    --
    Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  15. Re:"century-class solar minimum" by fractoid · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, unless these guys are wrong (or lying, paid for by big oil and coal of course!), our carbon emissions are heating Mars and Jupiter...

    --
    Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  16. Not old news ... by oneiros27 · · Score: 4, Informative

    This week is the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society's Solar Physics Division, which explains the timing of the press release.

    There have been a number of talks regarding the long solar minimum, and although I've been avoiding most of the oral sessions, there was one by Frank Hill (another NSO person) yesterday showing that um ... okay, I can't remember what the axii on the graphs were, but that the general activity below the 'surface' of the sun was showing a more gradual ramp up than the last solar minimum, but we're roughly at the same level of activity as when we started cycle 23.

    (disclaimer -- I'm not a solar physicist, but I am an affiliate SPD member ... I'd link to the abstract, but the system won't give me a useful URL)

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
  17. Re:"century-class solar minimum" by flyingfsck · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No true.

    We can take the sulphor filters out of the coal fired power stations and cause more reflection of sunlight in the upper atmosphere.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  18. Re:"century-class solar minimum" by HeLLFiRe1151 · · Score: 2, Funny

    The solar cycle is eleven years long isn't it? The solar minimum started in 2001 and will switch in 2012 (probably on December 21). Coincidence, I think not.

    --
    I've got 101 mod points and you can't have them!
  19. Re:"century-class solar minimum" by Hellsbells · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It seems that our carbon emissions are also cooling Venus and Uranus.

    Or it could be that these planets temperatures are changing independently of both the Sun and our carbon emissions?

    There's nothing like some cherry picked data to prove a point.

  20. Re:"century-class solar minimum" by Hellsbells · · Score: 3, Informative

    NASA knows about the 11 year solar cycle, and attributes 2008 being the coolest year since 2000 to this and the La Nina cycle:

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=36699

    2008 was still the 10th warmest year on record, 2007 the second warmest. Even discounting the varying solar activity, there is still a strong underlying warming trend, and it's a big worry that the temperatures around the poles have increased so much.

  21. PS by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Funny

    Those natuaral variations include solar flux but not susnspots, the reason being is that there is not a scrap of hard evidence that sunspots affect Earth's climate but there is plenty of evidence they affect book sales.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  22. Re:"century-class solar minimum" by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The 11 year cycle is superimposed on another signal, with a lower frequency, whose amplitude is currently increasing. That's the one that smart people are worried about.

    The people who look at the 11 year cycle are simply examining the wrong component of a compound waveform and declaring victory. They are wrong.

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  23. Re:"century-class solar minimum" by Lars+T. · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So why aren't "these guys" showing us that Mars and Jupiter are cooling, because the GW denier's latest claim is that Earth is in a cooling spell because of the Sunspot minimum?

    --

    Lars T.

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