Solar maximum for 2011, possible solar minimum for 2012

[HysteryDiagnosis]

I checked my sources.... they are reliable.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29may_noaaprediction.htm



It is tempting to describe such a cycle as "weak" or "mild," but that could give the wrong impression.

"Even a below-average cycle is capable of producing severe space weather," points out Biesecker. "The great geomagnetic storm of 1859, for instance, occurred during a solar cycle of about the same size we’re predicting for 2013."

The 1859 storm--known as the "Carrington Event" after astronomer Richard Carrington who witnessed the instigating solar flare--electrified transmission cables, set fires in telegraph offices, and produced Northern Lights so bright that people could read newspapers by their red and green glow. A recent report by the National Academy of Sciences found that if a similar storm occurred today, it could cause $1 to 2 trillion in damages to society's high-tech infrastructure and require four to ten years for complete recovery. For comparison, Hurricane Katrina caused "only" $80 to 125 billion in damage.


Above: This plot of sunspot numbers shows the measured peak of the last solar cycle in blue and the predicted peak of the next solar cycle in red. Credit: NOAA/Space Weather Prediction Center.

The latest forecast revises an earlier prediction issued in 2007. At that time, a sharply divided panel believed solar minimum would come in March 2008 followed by either a strong solar maximum in 2011 or a weak solar maximum in 2012. Competing models gave different answers, and researchers were eager for the sun to reveal which was correct.

"It turns out that none of our models were totally correct," says Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA's lead representative on the panel. "The sun is behaving in an unexpected and very interesting way."

Researchers have known about the solar cycle since the mid-1800s. Graphs of sunspot numbers resemble a roller coaster, going up and down with an approximately 11-year period. At first glance, it looks like a regular pattern, but predicting the peaks and valleys has proven troublesome. Cycles vary in length from about 9 to 14 years. Some peaks are high, others low. The valleys are usually brief, lasting only a couple of years, but sometimes they stretch out much longer. In the 17th century the sun plunged into a 70-year period of spotlessness known as the Maunder Minimum that still baffles scientists.

Above: Yearly-averaged sunspot numbers from 1610 to 2008. Researchers believe upcoming Solar Cycle 24 will be similar to the cycle that peaked in 1928, marked by a red arrow. Credit: NASA/MSFC

Right now, the solar cycle is in a valley--the deepest of the past century. In 2008 and 2009, the sun set Space Age records for low sunspot counts, weak solar wind, and low solar irradiance. The sun has gone more than two years without a significant solar flare.

"In our professional careers, we've never seen anything quite like it," says Pesnell. "Solar minimum has lasted far beyond the date we predicted in 2007."

In recent months, however, the sun has begun to show timorous signs of life. Small sunspots and "proto-sunspots" are popping up with increasing frequency. Enormous currents of plasma on the sun’s surface ("zonal flows") are gaining strength and slowly drifting toward the sun’s equator. Radio astronomers have detected a tiny but significant uptick in solar radio emissions. All these things are precursors of an awakening Solar Cycle 24 and form the basis for the panel's new, almost unanimous forecast.


Sign up for EXPRESS SCIENCE NEWS delivery
According to the forecast, the sun should remain generally calm for at least another year. From a research point of view, that's good news because solar minimum has proven to be more interesting than anyone imagined. Low solar activity has a profound effect on Earth’s atmosphere, allowing it to cool and contract. Space junk accumulates in Earth orbit because there is less aerodynamic drag. The becalmed solar wind whips up fewer magnetic storms around Earth's poles. Cosmic rays that are normally pushed back by solar wind instead intrude on the near-Earth environment. There are other side-effects, too, that can be studied only so long as the sun remains quiet.

Meanwhile, the sun pays little heed to human committees. There could be more surprises, panelists acknowledge, and more revisions to the forecast.

"Go ahead and mark your calendar for May 2013," says Pesnell. "But use a pencil."

[Blue_In_AK]

1. Well, I for one will be happy to see the Northern Lights back.

They've been noticably absent the past few years.

[Posteritatis]

2. But unlike the previous 410,000,000 solar cycles, this one will destroy us all! (nt)

[Blue_In_AK]

4. Well, yeah, there's that.

:)

[HysteryDiagnosis]

3. With a withering magnetosphere, they may not be as bright

as one would like...Note: graphic is from a different Nasa page.



Above: Artist's concept of the magnetosphere. The rounded, bullet-like shape represents the bow shock as the magnetosphere confronts solar winds. The area represented in gray, between the magnetosphere and the bow shock, is called the magnetopause. The Earth's magnetosphere extends about 10 Earth radii toward the Sun and perhaps similar distances outward on the flanks The magnetotail is thought to extend as far as 1,000 Earth radii away from the Sun.


http://istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/earthmag/magnQ&A3.htm
29. Space Radiation and our weakening Magnetic Field
Hi Dr. Stern:

I hope you can help me. I was just checking out your webpage and a question regarding the earth's Van Allen belts and solar flares/solar winds. I read that the earth's magnetic field has actually weakened by about 7% and field's actual total energy measured is less by 14% (since 1829). What is the impact of this weakening on the Van Allen Belts and the earth's Magnetosphere?

If solar flare activity increases (e.g. second-biggest geomagnetic storm ever measured hit the earth about a week ago) and the earth's magnetic field weakens, what impacts would we observe inside the atmosphere? Higher radiation exposure for folks on planes? Greater disruptions with electrical grids and radio transmissions? What's projected in the long term?

Can you recommend any websites that "a non-scientist lay person" might be able to read up on this. I guess the late August solar flare activity had nothing to do with the New York blackout (it occurred 2 weeks earlier in August).
Reply

When discussing risks and dangers from radiation in space, you should really distinguish two kinds of radiation:


(1) Trapped radiation, e.g. Van Allen Belt
(2) Energetic ions emitted by solar flares.

(1) Trapped radiation is governed by the geomagnetic field. If you are below the belt (as in the international space station) or elsewhere outside its intense part, you should have nothing to worry about. It could well be that the belt is now 7% weaker than in the time of Gauss, 160 years ago, but that does not really change the preceding statement. These ions have about 50 MeV.

(2) Solar flares release unpredictable blasts of particles of higher energy, often 500 MeV and up to 10 GeV. In this case, people on the ground are still safe, because the atmosphere has enough thickness to stop the particles, equivalent to something like 4 meters of concrete. See the end of
http://www.phy6.org/Education/wsolpart.htm If you are in a spacecraft on your way to Mars, that can be dangerous. In Ben Bova's book "Mars" this does happen, and astronauts have to hide in a protected area--behind fuel tanks, probably.

On Earth, we have an additional shield, the Earth's magnetism, which will deflect all but the highest energies from regions at equatorial and middle latitudes. Jetliners crossing the polar region may perhaps find it useful to fly a little deeper in the atmosphere, maybe, and I heard the Concorde carried a radiation alarm.

The magnetic field would have completely protected the space station in its originally planned orbit, inclined 29 degrees to the equator (latitude of Cape Canaveral). As it happened, this was later increased to about twice as much, to enable Russian launch sites to resupply the station (which turned out quite important after the "Columbia" disaster). Twice each orbit, therefore, the station has relatively weak magnetic protection, near its closest approach to the magnetic poles. I heard a rumor that during the 3 big flare events at the end of October the astronauts did in fact hide, but that is strictly hearsay which I cannot confirm. The even bigger flare on November 4 did not produce such a radiation surge.

I am not sure about disruption of power grids, but I think it arises when the auroral electrojets shift to lower latitudes during storms. There are two large electric currents flowing along the auroral zone towards midnight, associated with the polar aurora (or more precisely, with the electric currents which produce big aurora; see in "Exploration of the Earth's Magnetosphere.") Like any electric currents, they produce a magnetic field which can be observed on the ground, and which changes fairly irregularly.

When they move equatorwards, into more inhabited regions (and out of them again), the changing magnetic field induces electric currents in the high voltage networks there. The induction is slow, so the transformers of the grid, configured to impede currents of 60 or 50 cycles/second, see essentially a DC current, to which they offer it no significant impedance, allowing it to grow big. Such a current can burn out transformers, unless appropriate circuit breakers are tripped in time. I don't know how serious that is: burn-outs happened in 1989, but as far as I know, not recently.

I am not an expert in disruption of radio. Flares emit X-rays, which modify the ionosphere, adding ionization deeper down. It then can absorb certain frequencies, but I am not sure whether, say, cell phones are affected, or ships and airplanes. I think the frequencies used by communication satellites are high enough to be immune, and of course a lot of land traffic these days uses optical cable. I am not sure about GPS.

[postulater]

12. My first thought also, though I live at the very bottom of the likely range.

Most amazing experience ever is watching the Northern Lights!

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. But that story doesn't say what your headline says at all

It says an earlier prediction was for "either a strong solar maximum in 2011 or a weak solar maximum in 2012" (not a minimum in 2012 at all"; but the latest prediction when that was written was a waek maximum in 2013. They also say a weak maximum doesn't mean there's be no problems on Earth.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

9. Soooooooo then, they said something and you read it. Oh goody. Seriously

you are correct, my OP is flawed and I cannot edit it now.... I'll try but I think the window has closed.

[Edweird]

6. I have to say, you post some interesting stuff.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

8. I have unlimited disinterest in the ordinary. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

7. I think it's revenge for the moon bombing.

And I blame the patriarchy.

[Silent3]

10. If a big solar storm does come along and causes trillions in damage...

...how many people, DU-ers, freepers, people all over the political spectrum, will be ABSOLUTELY SURE it that was a CONSPIRACY!!! SOLAR STORM MY ASS! THAT LUDICROUS COVER STORY!?!? THEY BLEW OUT THE POWER LINES AND FRIED OUR PLAYSTATIONS ON PURPOSE TO (fill in the blank, depending on who your personal boogie men are)!!!

[HysteryDiagnosis]

11. Invest in foil umbrellas... that's all I have to offer. n't