The Sun's 'Quiet Period' Explained

Arvisp writes with this excerpt from the BBC: "Solar physicists may have discovered why the Sun recently experienced a prolonged period of weak activity. The most recent so-called 'solar minimum' occurred in December 2008. Its drawn-out nature extended the total length of the last solar cycle — the repeating cycle of the Sun's activity — to 12.6 years, making it the longest in almost 200 years. The new research suggests that the longer-than-expected period of weak activity may have been linked to changes in the way a hot soup of charged particles called plasma circulated in the Sun."

Comments

Re:Climate change

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right. The sun's solar minimum is not caused by global warming, nor is the hottest decade on record caused by the sun's solar minimum. Pass it on to any idiots you know who keep saying "It's just the sun!"

Just Pushes Back The Question

[Mikkeles]

'... may have been linked to changes in the way a hot soup of charged particles called plasma circulated in the Sun.

So why did the "hot soup of charged particles called plasma" change in the way that they circulated?

This is why I hate most science reporting

[NeutronCowboy]

The headline, and the first few paragraphs make it sound like this is a solved problem: theories were proposed, experiments were done, results were verified and a conclusion was concluded.

Instead, what actually happened is completely murky. There is no mention of which satellites were used to gather data, or which organization collected it, or how data was used to support the conclusions. It seems that some people ran some computer simulations where they could replicate the current cycle by changing some parameters of the solar conveyor belt. But that's a guess, because the article says nothing. And to really make the article useless, there's the obligatory counter-point from a random scientist who says something completely different, again without any explanation of why.

Journalists ought to learn that science reporting is not like Entertainment or even Politics reporting. It doesn't really matter who said what, but only why they say and how they came to the conclusions. I'm not holding my breath though.

Re:This is why I hate most science reporting

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The headline, and the first few paragraphs make it sound like this is a solved problem: theories were proposed, experiments were done, results were verified and a conclusion was concluded.

Well, it's kind of hard to do experiments on the Sun. This is one of the problems with the idea that a lot of people seem to have, usually based on half-remembered lessons from high school "science" class, that there's thing called "the scientific method." There isn't; there are a whole bunch of scientific methods, all more or less related but difffering from field to field. Observational sciences such as astronomy must by the nature of the field use different methods from experimental sciences such as, say, microbiology.

Anyway, as far as the specific article goes, it makes no such claims as you, um, claim it does. From the very first sentence: "Solar physicists may have discovered why ..." And it goes on with "The new research suggests that ...", "... one reason for the prolonged period of weak activity could be ...", etc. This is actually a pretty good job of pop-sci reporting, and from your complaint it sounds like you read what you expected to see in the article, instead of what's actually there.

Re:This is why I hate most science reporting

[Mashiki]

Journalists don't have a clue. Which is why from law to science reporting is garbage. From why fruit flies die so quickly, to anything in relation to climate or weather, to why bad guy X got 5yrs in jail for insert crime here. From a lawish point of view let me add this, every once and awhile I spend time in court being a witness for this, or that, or something else. There's always some reporter, from some news agency there if it's anything big. I will tell you now, if I wasn't in the court myself, I'd have no clue that the article I was reading had any relation to the case, if my name wasn't in there somewhere.

That's how far removed reporting is from reality these days.

Re:This is why I hate most science reporting

[Fantom42]

Journalists ought to learn that science reporting is not like Entertainment or even Politics reporting. It doesn't really matter who said what, but only why they say and how they came to the conclusions. I'm not holding my breath though.

Well, the summary is worse than the article in those respects. For something like the BBC, the audience cares less about the methods and more about the conclusions. That said, it doesn't excuse reporting of incorrect conclusions.

Re:This is why I hate most science reporting

[Attila Dimedici]

Actually, Politics reporting would be vastly improved if they would report it more like you would like them to report science news. You know instead of "People really seem to like Joe Schmoe's position on TOPIC OF THE DAY. According to the latest poll he is pulling ahead of John Doe after trailing him for the last month," they could say, "Joe Schmoe has released a detailed proposal on TOPIC OF THE DAY. He says that he would propose THIS APPROACH to dealing with this issue. Meanwhile, John Doe has said that while THIS APPROACH might work, it would be much better to take THAT APPROACH." (words in all capitals represent variables that will change from election to election).
If newspapers had started giving detailed reports on the positions politicians take on various issues years ago instead of giving us the same soundbite coverage that television gives us, they might still be viable businesses.
Of course this might have resulted in people who get their news from the newspaper voting for the "wrong" candidate based on the positions he took.

Re:This is why I hate most science reporting

[way2slo]

... This is one of the problems with the idea that a lot of people seem to have, usually based on half-remembered lessons from high school "science" class, that there's thing called "the scientific method." There isn't; there are a whole bunch of scientific methods, all more or less related but difffering from field to field. Observational sciences such as astronomy must by the nature of the field use different methods from experimental sciences such as, say, microbiology. ...

Differing, yes. The fields where experimentation is possible we can have confidence in the results. Experiments are done and theories are put to the test. The fields were experimentation is difficult or impossible we are stuck with having theories that happen to fit what facts we have. Sometimes, not even that. Sometimes, it is a theory because it "feels" right because it is abstracted several times from anything resembling a fact. That is a good thing as long as we understand that tomorrow it could be usurped by something entirely different. It's OK as long as we know that that theory is just an educated guess. How much confidence can you really have in a guess?

The problem with Journalism (and some people), and this article is guilty of it in the headline, is that they take a theory from the latter fields from above and pass it off as something much more solid than an educated guess. "The Sun's mystery Explained!" Yes, I know they do that to sell more copy, but it still a problem all the same. I suppose "New Theory for Sun Mystery!" isn't as exciting, but it would be the truth. It's a theory and it should be questioned early and often otherwise scientists are not doing their jobs.

Re:This is why I hate most science reporting

[Bigjeff5]

There isn't; there are a whole bunch of scientific methods, all more or less related but difffering from field to field.

There is only one scientific method: observe, measure, repeat. All those "different" scientific methods are simply different techniques used to follow each of those steps. The steps themselves never change.

For example, it may be currently impossible to perform experiments on the Sun. That does not mean the scientific method does not apply. The scientific method says nothing about performing experiments - it says make an observation, measure what you observed, and repeat the observation. You can do this by simply watching the sun through a telescope. Patterns emerge, and there are reasons for those patterns. You develop theories that should allow you to predict what will happen next - the closer your theory is to correct, the more accurate your predictions will reflect your observations. This is the scientific method being used to further our understanding of the universe. It's how we know so damned much about it, and how we know there is a whole lot more that we don't know about it.

This is how all science works. Experimental scientists have the luxury of repeating their observations at will, which scientists who cannot perform experiments on their subjects don't have the luxury of doing, but that in no way means one group is using a fundamentally different scientific method. Reality couldn't be further from the truth.

Re:This is why I hate most science reporting

[Bigjeff5]

The GP is confusing observation, which is the first component of the scientific method, with experimentation, which is a technique for initiating the repetition of the conditions to allow for more observations.

The Sun currently cannot be experimented on, but to say you cannot perform observations, measure those observations, or repeat those observations and measurements, is patently absurd and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the very core of all science.

If it cannot be observed, it cannot be science. Period. There is no other option. If it cannot be measured, it cannot be science. Period. If it never repeats and cannot be made to repeat it cannot be science. Period. An experiment is nothing more than forcing the repetition of the conditions to allow for another observation and measurement. It's not at all necessary for science.

Re:This is why I hate most science reporting

[sznupi]

You look at the past through rose colored glasses. In the past there was even no real way to verify most of the news at all (which probably affects how "reliable" it felt). Solid reporting has never been so easily accessible as it is today (many prople of course don't care / ignore it, but it's there)

May have been linked

[blair1q]

may have been linked to changes in the way a hot soup of charged particles called plasma circulated in the Sun

Um, yeah, and the recent heat wave in the western part of the U.S. may have been linked to changes in the way a hot soup of particles called atoms circulated in the atmosphere...

Seriously. /. needs to stop voting dreck into the stream and start doing real story selection and summary editing. Because the value added per editorial second is dropping like a rock.

Re:Seems normal to me.

[Tablizer]

The above is exactly why I keep asking for a "TMI" moderator category.

Re:Cycle my ass ...

[Dunbal]

a 'cycle' is invented.

      Yes because there are no cycles at all in nature.

      Hello? Just because we can't explain something fully doesn't mean we can't spot repetitive behavior. These observations have value, if only to serve as the starting point for an explanation by someone smarter than us at some point in the future.

Re:All we *ever* do is push back the question

[Bigjeff5]

"everything exploded from nothing"

Dude, you need to watch more science tv, scientists are working on that as we speak. That "everything from nothing" problem affects a lot more than just the origins of the universe - it basically breaks physics, so theoretical physicists are desperate to figure out the solution. So far, the best explanation seems to be string theory, and that there are a lot more than just the one universe and the four dimensions. It's gaining ground because it seems to fix the standard model - that was actually what it was originally intended to do. It just happens to provide a possible source for the Big Bang as well. Also, like every new leap in science seems to do, it raises a lot more questions than it answers.

"god did it"

Short of god coming down and saying "look it's me! I did it!" this is impossible to prove or disprove, so it's pretty pointless to even consider from a scientific standpoint. Science needs things that are observable, measurable, and repeatable. "God did it" allows for none of that.

Taking blame for something...

[denzacar]

...is not the worst thing that can happen. Particularly when we are talking astrophysics.

I prefer the option where it IS "our" fault compared to one where the cause of trouble is completely out of our hands.
Cause if we can break it, we can probably fix it to. Not easily, but there is a chance.

Fixing something caused by the Sun... well... not this civilization.

Re:Cycle my ass ...

[token0]

And, if you're in extreme denial, you can see evidence of a cycle yourself, if you've got the patience to take a look at the sun (filtered/projected) and note the spot number for ~20 years. There's data since 1750. Sunspots are correlated with auroras, so it's also within the reach of a human with no modern equipment to check the effects of sun activity.

Re:Finally...

[xMilkmanDanx]

No, the change was because people mistaking localized effects for proof that the globe wasn't warming. Some spots might see lower average temperatures due to changes in cloud cover, rain fall, etc. while the overall global temperature is still higher.

For all the people that think that global warming is some conspiracy, publish a reproducible proof in a journal that shows it. You will win a nobel prize and a lifetime of funding.

Re:Finally...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the change was because people mistaking localized effects for proof that the globe wasn't warming.

Maybe that's because every single "bad" weather event is publicized by the media, politicians, so-called "scientists" as proof of global warming.

Some spots might see lower average temperatures due to changes in cloud cover, rain fall, etc. while the overall global temperature is still higher.

Note that the vast majority of that "warming" is at higher latitudes where the instrument record is sparse and the temperatures are interpolated over great distances. Unless you think assigning a value for an area via a thermometer that is 1200 km away is "robust". To put that in perspective, that's like saying "I can tell you the temperature in Philadelphia by using a thermometer in Chicago". Or, for those on the other side of the pond, "I can tell you the temperature in Stockholm by using a thermometer in Paris".

For all the people that think that global warming is some conspiracy, publish a reproducible proof in a journal that shows it. You will win a nobel prize and a lifetime of funding.

As the CRU emails have shown, when you have a small group of reviewers who can effectively dictate what is and is not published, there is little chance of a contrarian, yet robust, paper from ever seeing the light of day. One could choose to self-publish, but then those same gate-keepers cry "It's not in a peer-reviewed journal!".