The long decline to solar minimum
On Monday NOAA released its monthly update of the solar cycle, showing the Sun’s sunspot activity in January. As I have done every month since 2010, I am posting it here with annotations to give it context.
What strikes me about this month’s continuing and steady decline in sunspots is how much it illustrates the long and steady nature of the ramp down to solar minimum, even for cycles that are very active. If you look at the ramp down during the previous solar cycle on the graph below the fold, it took four full years to reach solar minimum from a comparable sunspot level to what we have today.
The graph above has been modified to show the predictions of the solar science community. The green curves show the community’s two original predictions from April 2007, with half the scientists predicting a very strong maximum and half predicting a weak one. The red curve is their revised May 2009 prediction.
It is presently seven years since that last solar minimum. If it takes four more years to reach our next solar minimum, it will mean that this solar cycle was exactly 11 years long, the average length for all solar cycles since scientists began tracking them in the 1700s. What makes that interesting is that, according to the data, a weak solar maximum (as we have just experienced) usually corresponds to a longer overall cycle. At the moment at least that does not appear to be where we are heading. If the ramp down is comparable to last solar cycle, this cycle will last about the normal length of time, while producing far fewer sunspots than predicted.
What does this mean? Don’t ask me. For one thing, the ramp down this time might take much longer than the last ramp down, so the cycle itself might end up much longer. Or it might not. It simply is too early to tell.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
What is, if there is any, the measured decrease in solar energy output as it relates to the diminishing of sun spot activity?
The total irradiance drop is very small, about 0.01 degrees Fahrenheit, not enough to cause the cooling that has occurred in the past. This number however is what has been measured since 1978, when we finally could get good numbers above the atmosphere, so it only records changes during normal solar cycles. What happened during the Maunder Minimum in the 1600s remains very uncertain.
Cotour,
There is a hypothesis that galactic cosmic rays (GCR) striking the Earth’s atmosphere contribute to the formation of clouds, and more clouds means less solar heating. The hypothesis suggests that when the sun is active (more sun spots) then the solar magnetic field prevents GCRs from reaching the Earth, slightly fewer clouds form, and the Earth warms. The “little ice age” of the middle of the last millennium sort of corresponds to the Maunder Minimum of no observed sun spots.
This page suggests that GCRs (or the lack thereof) are not a major contributor to the current apparent global warming (can we trust the climatologists anymore?).
https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=277
On the other hand, some research suggests that sun cycles have a greater effect on Earth’s climate or weather patterns than suggested by the 0.01F change that Robert reported.
http://www.universetoday.com/38454/researchers-say-sun-cycle-alters-earths-climate/
Rhetorical question: How does the strength of a cycle affects this effect?
Burt Rutan takes on “global warming”, very comprehensive and informative lecture basically, if you have the interest and time.
https://youtu.be/jPP7P43wulg